1983 P Cr (PLP)

Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 alongwith two others are accused of offences under sections 307/326/149 and 148, P. P. C. The allegation is that having armed themselves with various weapons of offence they formed into an unlawful assembly and caused injuries to Muhammad Rafiq, Manzoor Ahmad and Muhammad Hanif.

2. Learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner has argued that earlier in the day an altercation had taken place between the parties and, previous enmity existed as a result of which the accused brought weapons of offence and attacked the complainant party causing injuries to three members of the complainant party and since this was an act done by an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object each one of the respondents was equally liable for the offence and the Courts below were wrong in allowing bail to them: Learned counsel has further submitted that the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are tampering with the evidence because they brought Pir of Muhammad Rafiq injured P. W. to their house for effecting a compromise and the respondents are extending threats of dire consequences to the com plainant party.

3. The learned judicial Magistrate, Bhalwal allowed bail to respondent Muhammad Aslam because he was a student and was empty-handed and bail was allowed to Nur Elahi respondent because he was a man of advanced age. Muhammad Aslam respondent has not been attributed any injury to any member of the complainant party while Nur Elahi respondent has not caused any grievous hurt to any one. The application of the petitioner for cancellation of bail was not allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha for the reasons that injuries attributed to Muhammad Afzal respondent were of simple nature and were on the fingers of Manzoor Ahmad P. W. due to which it cannot be said that Muhammad Afzal respondent had tried to cause any injury on vital part of the injured. The bail of Muhammad Adam respondent was not cancelled because he was a minor and no injury was attributed to him. Similarly, bail of Nur Elahi respondent was not cancelled because he was not armed with any sharp-edged weapon at the

4. It will be open for the trial Court to determine the guilt or otherwise of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and also to determine whether they were members' of the unlawful assembly and the act was performed in prosecution of the common object. The reasons given by the Courts below for allowing bail refusing the application for cancellation of the bail of the respondents cannot be said to be perverse. I do not find any reason to interfere with these orders. It will be for the trial Court to consider the question of cancellation of bail at any stage after recording some evidence. This application has no merits. It is dismissed. Cancellation of bails declined.