1978 PLP 326 (SCMR)

DORAB PATEL, J.‑The first four respondents are being tried with other accused under the series of offences under section 302/148/149/325, P. P. C. The occurrence took place on 9‑11‑1976 and Mohammad Aslam (the father of the petitioner) succumbed to his injuries. His widow was also injured and the prosecution case is that the de ceased was a tenant of the party of the respondents, who wanted to evict him, therefore, all the accused had come and attacked the deceased. But even according to the F. I. R. the weapons used were Lathis and only Mohammad Nazim had attacked the deceased. On the other hand, Mohammad Nazim had himself received 11 injuries whilst the first respondent had received 14 injuries and the third respondent had received 6 injuries. In these circumstances the party of these respondents had also filed a cross case which is pending. And in this background as their bail application was rejected by the Sessions Court, they challenged the order of the Sessions Court in an appeal in the Lahore High Court. By his order dated 13‑2‑1978, a learned Judge of the High Court dismissed the bail application of Mohammad Nazim as the fatal blow was attributed to him, but he granted bail to the other accused, namely the first four respondents before us. Hence this petition for leave. In support of the petition, Mr. War Mahmood relied on the fact that the party of the respondents had caused the death of the father of the petitioner. He also submitted that the prosecution version that there was a dispute about the land and that the party of the respondents had come and attacked the party of the petitioner was supported by an order of a civil Court dated 27‑9‑1975. He, further, relied on the fact that the report of the appellants was adverse to the cross complaint filed by the party of the respondents. In these circumstances he submitted that there was a prima facie case under section 149, P. P. C. against the first four respondents, there fore, the impugned order was illegal. Although the father of the petitioner was killed in the occurrence, as pointed out by the learned Judge, the weapon used was a lathi and none of the accused were armed with anything other than lathis. Secondly, as pointed out by the learned Judge, many injuries had been inflicted ore the party of the respondents. And as we do not wish to make any observations which would pre judge the case of the parties in the Sessions Court, we would only observe that these and other circumstances relied upon by the learned Judge were circumstances relevant to the exercise of the Court discretion in favour of the first four respondents, therefore, it cannot possibly be contended that the High Court had granted bail by exercising its discretion arbitrarily or capriciously. The petition is without merit and is dismissed. Petition dismissed