1986 P Cr (PLP)

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2188‑B of 1985, decided on 19th October, 1985. ‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/307/148/149‑‑Bail‑‑Both accused petitioners alleged to have given one blow each to deceased after he had fallen down‑‑Injuries caused were simple‑‑One of co‑accused (not petitioners) receiving fire‑arm injuries‑‑Contention that occurrence could have been possibly a sudden fight between parties (not present before Court) and petitioners were roped in because they happened to be sons of co‑accused and one of them being a young boy‑‑Accused (petitioners) granted bail without commenting upon evidence collected by Investigating Officer. Ehtesham Qadir Shah for Petitioners. Akhtar Shabbir Asstt. A.‑G. for the State. Afzal Haider for the Complainant. In continuation of my order, dated 15‑9‑1985 I have heard learned counsel for the parties. According to the F.I.R. the present two petitioners are alleged to have given one blow each to Sher Muhammad deceased when he had fallen down. Both the injuries are stated to be simple and it is submitted by learned counsel that they could have even been caused by a fall on the ground. Two persons have been killed in the instant case. These are Khuda Bakhsh and Sher Muhammad. So far as Khuda Bakhsh is concerned he is stated to have received a hatchet blow from Fida Hussain co‑accused who is not petitioner before me and so far as Sher Muhammad deceased is concerned he is stated to have received fatal hatchet blow from Muhammad Khan co‑accused not petitioner before me. From the side of the accused party Fida Hussain co‑accused has received fire‑arm injuries and it is stated in the F.I.R. that Sher Muhammad who was carrying his licensed gun fired a shot in the exercise of his right of self‑defence and that as a result Fida Hussain co‑accused was injured. Learned counsel has also placed on record medical evidence to the effect that Muhammad Khan co‑accused had also received blunt weapon simple injuries three in number at the hands of the complainant side but they do not find any mention in the F.I.R. He wants me to draw the inference that it could have been possibly a sudden fight between the parties. It is also urged that one of the petitioners, namely, Manzoor Hussain is 16 years and 5 months old according to his school leaving certificate and both these petitioners are sons of Muhammad Khan co‑accused. It is also stated that it could be possible that the real fight took place between their father and the complainant side and the present two petitioners were roped in because they happened to be the sons and one being a young boy. Be that as it may, without commenting upon the evidence which has been collected in this case by the Investigating officer, in my view, case is made out for the grant of bail to the two petitioners. I, therefore, admit them A to bail subject to their furnishing security in the sum of Rs.25,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Jauharabad. This petition is disposed of. M. A. K. Bail granted.