1982 PLP 208 (SCMR)

NASIM HASAN SHAH, J‑‑This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 29‑8‑1977, dismissing the application for bail of the present petitioners in a case registered against them under section 302/307/148/149, P. P. C., in connection with the death of two persons and injuries to four persons. The F. I. R. was lodged on 10‑7‑1976 at 6.30 p.m., just two hours after the occurrence, at Police Station, Chak Jhumra, by Mst. Rahmi, sister of the deceased. Briefly stated, it is alleged in the F. I. R. that Sanatta and Malla petitioners, along with other five accused, armed with various weapons, attacked the dera of the complainant, as a result of which Allah Di to and his mother Mst. Nooran, died and four persons, namely Mst. Sabi, Mst. Muradan, sisters, Dilmir, their father, and Boota, cousin of the complainant, received grievous and simple injuries. Sanatta petitioner was alleged to be armed with sota and to have inflicted sota blow on the left shoulder of Mst. Muradan, whereas Malla petitioner, armed with hatchet, had inflicted hatchet blow on the head of Mst. Sabi, the sister of Allah Ditta deceased. The motive, as disclosed in the F.1.R is that Allah Ditta deceased abducted Mst. Bilquis, daughter of Sukha (one of the accused in this matter) who was restored to her parents one year prior to the occurrence. She was again abducted, and this time again Allah Ditta deceased was suspected of abduction. Sukha (father of the abductee) being so aggrieved, along with his six partisans, including the petitioners, attacked to dera of the complainant, which resulted in the death of the two persons and injuries to other four. The two present petitioners and another (Nishan) applied for the grant of bail before the learned Sessions Judge. This application was dismissed. A further application to the same effect was then made before the High Court. A learned Single Judge heard the matter, who, while granting bail to Nishan refused bail to the present petitioners. As regards them, it was observed that usnlike Nishan, they were assigned specific and overt roles in the F. I. R. The plea that there was an inconsistency in regard to the specific roles attributed to the petitioners, as given in the F. I. R. and the medical evidence, insofar as the hatchet blow allegedly inflicted by Malla on the head of Mst. Sabi, according to the F. I. R. was not supported by medical result, did not find favour with the learned Judge of the High Court, who observed that such inconsistencies, by themselves, were not sufficient to indicate that further enquiry into the guilt of the petitioners was called for. Before us, it was submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the case of Nishan was indistinguishable from the one of the petitioners and by parity of reasoning they should also be admitted to bail. We do not agree. The perusal of the record shows that Nishan was assigned no overt act in the F. I. R. and this position is supported by the finding of both the Court below to the same effect, whereas the petitioners have been ascribed specific acts. As for the argument of the learned counsel, based upon the dicta in P L D 1972 S C 81, that contradictory versions as to the specific role assigned to the accused necessitated further enquiry into the guilt or otherwise under section 497(2) of the Cr. P. C. entitling the petitioners to the grant o bail, and that in the instant case the learned Judge of the High Court has narrowed down the scope of section 497 (2), Cr. P. C., we consider that the above‑cited ruling does not help the petitioners. The dicta in criminal cases have to be read in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case, and the circumstances in the present case are not similar to the facts and circumstances of the above‑cited case. In the instant matter the F.

1. R assigns specific roles to the petitioners, and the fact that the medical report does not agree with the account of eye‑witnesses of the specific blows delivered by the respective petitioners might well be a relevant factor at the trial, yet at this stage this aspect of the matter cannot be gone into very deeply. Moreover, as pointed out by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in his order dated, 26‑1‑1977, the incriminating weapons were recovered from the petitioners, and according to the report of the Chemical Examiner, they were also found to be stained with blood. He also pointed out that apart from this, sections 148 and 149, P. P. C. also prima facie, stood attracted to the facts of the case. In view of the foregoing, we do not think that the discretion by the learned Judge in the High Court in refusing bail to the petitioners was exercised illegally or perversely. This petition for leave to appeal must fail and is, accordingly, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.