1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order dated 17-10- 1978 of the Lahore High Court, whereby the petitioners were refused bail in a case under sections 302/149 and 148, P. P. C.
2. According to the F.1. R., the petitioners before us, armed with balams and a sota, along with others, on 21-3-1978 attacked Lal Khan deceased and caused him injuries as a result of which he died. The motive for the attack is stated to be that eight-nine months prior tot he occurrence Lal Khan deceased had made a murderous assault on one Sher Muhammad, a relative of the accused persons, and to avenge the said assault the accused have committed the murder of Lal Khan.
3. The petitioners along with Abbas co-accused applied for bail, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat dismissed their application. They then approached the High Court through Cr. Misc.
4. No. 3789-B of 1978 and a learned Single Judge allowed bail to Abbas co-accused but rejected the application of the present petitioners, observing that unlike Abbas they were assigned specific roles in the F. I. R.
5. Before us it is submitted that thirteen out of eighteen persons mentioned as accused in the F. I. R.
6. Were found innocent by the Police and the version given in the F. I. R. Could not be relied upon insofar as the investigation revealed that five persons not connected with the incident had allegedly participated in the occurrence while five other persons who were the true culprits had been left out. In these circumstances, the case of the petitioners was one of "further inquiry" within the meaning of section 497(2), Cr. P. C. And they are entitled to the concession of bail.
7. We are not inclined to agree. The names of the petitioners are mentioned in the F. I. R. They were allegedly armed with balams and a dang and specific parts are attributed to them. We, therefore, do no think that their case is one of further inquiry simply because during the investigation by the Police some of the accused were found innocent, The High Court, while refusing bail to the petitioners, does not appear to have exercised the discretion vested in it arbitrarily or perversely and no interference is, therefore, called for.
8. The petition is accordingly dismissed.