REHMAT ALI vs HUSSAIN AND 8 Other

ORDER

1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--This petition for special leave to appeal b directed against the order dated 17,6-1976, passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Cr. Mist. No. 2095/8 of 1976, whereby bail was granted to respondents 1 to 8.

2. The facts briefly are that two cross cases relating to one and the same niece were registered at Police Station Nankana Sahib on 5-3-1976, namely, F. I. R. No. 55 under sections 302/307/148 and 149, P. P. C. Lodged by Rehmat Ali (petitioner herein) against the respondents, and F. I. R. No. 56 under sections 307/326/325/324/148 and 149, P. P. C. Lodged by Muhammad Ramsan (respondent No. 2 herein) against the petitioner-party.

3. Briefly stated, the story as disclosed in F. I. R. No. 56 (lodged by respondent No. 2) is that both the parties are related to each other. The niece of Rehmat Ali petitioner was married to one Khan (son of Hussain, respondent No. 1, and brother of respondents 2 to 5) about seven or eight years ago.

4. The petitioner-party was demanding the hand of Met. Manzooran, daughter Hussain respondent, in a change, for one Muhammad Hanif but the respondents refused to do so, and instead engaged her with one Maqbool, son of Daulat respondent. The Nikah ceremony was performed about twenty days prior to the occurrence, it is alleged that a day prior to the day of occurrence Daulat respondent, father of Maqbool, his wife Mat. Hussain Bibi and her brother Muhammad Iahaque had come to the house of Hussain respondent for fixation of a date of marriage. On the day of occurrence when some of the relations were sitting in the house of Hussain respondent, the petitioner-party came there from Nankana Sahib, which is at a distance of about two miles from the residence of Hussain, and attacked some of the respondents, who were sitting there, causing grievous injuries with sharp-edged and blunt weapons.

5. According to the version of Rehmat Ali petitioner given in F. I R. No. 55 of 1976, he along with his brothers Ahmed and Hamid, their mother Mst. Fatima and wife of Hamid Mst. Sardaran went to the house of Hussain respondent on the occasion of the fixation of the date of marriage or Mst.

6. Manzooran, wherein an altercation took place in which Muhammad Ramzan and Ghaus respondents, armed with hatchets, Alam respondent armed with spear and gamin, Daulat and Muhammad respondents armed with antes attacked them (petitioner-party) Ramzan inflicted a hatchet blow on Ahmed near his left car, on receipt of which he fell down. Aslam respondent gave a spear blow on the right wrist of Hamid. Mst. Fatima who advanced to revue the victims, was, on the instigation of Hussain respondent, given a hatchet blow by Ramzan on her head, on receipt of which she also fell down and died on the spot. In this occurrence 21 injuries were suffered by the complainant side, including one dead and three injured, while nine injuries were suffered by the side of respondents.

7. While the members of the petitioner-party were released on bail, the respondent were refused bail by the learned Sessions Judge. However, the High Court accepted their bail application, observing that it was surprising that the report Lodged by Rehmat Ali petitioner did not explain the presence of the injuries that had been caused by sharp-edged and sharp-pointed weapons by the members of his side. Moreover, the occurrence had taken place at she house of Hussain respondent on the occasion of the fixation of the date of marriage of his daughter and since the petitioner-party had gone to his house, the question as to which party had aggressed required further inquiry.

8. Mr. N. A. Sbami, Advocate, in support of this petition has contented that the omission to mention the injuries suffered by the respondents would not make the petitioner-party, per se, the aggressor and the respondents aggressed. No doubt, the occurrence, tools place in the house belonging to the respondents but the reason for the petitioner-party to be there was that they had been Invited in connection with the occasion of the fixation of the date of marriage of Mst. Mansooran and had, therefore, not gone there to attack, and that the question as to which party eras the aggress of was still to be gone into after the evidence had been recorded. Hence, by allowing bail to respondents 1 to 8 the High Court had almost given a finding that the petitioner-party was the aggressor and that this finding would prejudice their vase.

9. There is no force in this submission. The learned Judge in the High Court has noted that the incident took place in the house of Hussain respondent. He further appears that the members of the petitioner-party when armed with knife and hatchet and, therefore, the question as to which party was the aggressor did require further inquiry because the petitioner-party, had to explain why they were armed with sharp-edged and sharp-pointed weapons, in case it was established that the injuries on some members of the respondent-party had in fact been caused by them. In these circumstance, when the members of the petitioner party already on bail, the release of the respondents on bail does not appear to ' be an arbitrary or perverse exercise of discretion which was vested in the high Court.

10. There m no ground for interference. This petition a accordingly dismissed.