1982 P Cr (PLP)

So far as the petitioners are concerned, it is alleged that they were armed with hatchets. Riaz petitioner gave one hatchet blow on the person of Riaz Ali P. W. Mumtaz petitioner gave one hatchet blow to Langar and Abdullah petitioner is attributed one hatchet blow to Ghulam P. W. It is further alleged that after causing injuries to the P. Ws. the petitioners with their co‑accused trespassed into the house of Riaz P. W. and the co-accused who were armed with sotas injured Mst. Sahib Khatoon deceased and Mst. Daulan P. W.

3. It appears that both sides received injuries during the occur rence. On the side of the prosecution, the deceased received as many a pine injuries with blunt weapons ; Mst. Daulan received three injuries caused with blunt weapon, simple in nature; Riaz received 5 injuries, all simple caused with blunt as well as sharp‑edged weapon ; Langar received three injuries caused with sharp‑edged as well as blunt weapon simple in nature ; Hanif received two simple blunt weapon injuries ; Ghulam received one simple blunt .weapon injury and Abdul Malik received 6 injuries caused with blunt weapon out of which one has been declared as grievous. On the side of the accused, Manzoor son of Hamid received two simple injuries caused with blunt weapon ; Manzoor son of Baqir receiv ed three blunt weapon injuries, simple in nature and Bashir received 5 injuries ; one caused with sharp‑edged and the rest with blunt weapon, the injury caused with sharp‑edged ,on his person has been declared grievous.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are cross cases and it is yet to be determined as to who was the aggressor one. He explains that the complaint has been lodged by the accused party against the complainant party in which the accused persons of the complaint have been summoned to face trial under section 307/326/325/324/148/149, P. P. C. and the same is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Khanewal., He further submits that the petitioners did not cause any injury to the deceased and the question of their vicarious liability needs considera tion.

5. As against this the learned State counsel has vehemently opposed this petition. He submits that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioners have committed offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. He argues that section 149, P. P. C. stands clearly attracted to the case of the petitioners inasmuch as they came to the spot on the lalkara raised by Bashir co‑accused and after causing injuries to the P. Ws. they entered into the house of Riaz P. W. where the deceased was done to death. Learned counsel for the State has produced a copy of the memo randum of S. P. Multan, addressed to the D. I.‑G. Police, 'which has been marked as 'A' and has been placed on the record of this petition. This Memorandum shows that the S. P. has recommended the trial of the case by the Military Court. , Learned State counsel informs that the matter is still under consideration by the Martial Law authorities whether this case is to be tried by the Military Court or by the: learned Sessions Judge. I am of the opinion that since the case has not been referred to any Martial Law Court, this Court is competent to dispose of this application.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I find‑ (i) that there are cross‑cases and in the counter complaint, the accused (the complainant party of this case) has been summoned to face trial under section 307(326/148, P. P. C ; (if) that the petitioners did not cause any injury to the deceased ; (iii) that both sides have received injuries including one grievous injury found on the person of Bashir co‑accused ; and (iv) that the petitioners allegedly caused simple injuries to the P. Ws.

7. Without making any expression lest it may prejudice the case of either party, I am of the opinion that the question of vicarious liability of the petitioners needs further inquiry. The petitioners are, there fore, allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 20,000 (rupees twenty thousand) each with one surety each is the like amount to the satisfaction of A. C. Khanewal.

8. Needless to add that if the case is tried by the Martial Law Court then that Court would be competent to cancel the bail. Bail granted.