2005 PLP 952 (MLD)

The petitioners Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Waris have moved this application under section 497, Cr.P.C. for grant of post-arrest bail through their learned counsel. The above-mentioned two petitioners stand implicated through a cross-version in F.I.R. No.730 of 2004, dated 12-8-2004 of Muhammad Hameed who himself stands implicated in the above F.I.R. The above-said F.I.R. No.730 of 2004 was registered at the complaint of one Muhammad Aslam son of Muhammad Ibrahim who himself in the cross-version, is an accused. According to the cross-version, petitioner Muhammad Akram caused two hatchet injuries to Muhammad Ibrahim and petitioner Muhammad Waris caused Sotas blows to Muhammad Hameed, complainant of the cross-version.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that MLRs of Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Waris were conducted by the doctor on 11-8-2004 at 9-35 p.m. and on the same day at 10-45 p.m. respectively. He further contends that F.I.R. No.730 of 2004 was registered at 12-30 a.m. on 12-8-2004 on the complaint of Muhammad Aslam whereas complaint of Muhammad Hameed was filed on 14-8-2004 even after the Medico-legal reports above-mentioned. He further contends that the cross-version wherein the petitioners stand implicated is a counter-blast. He also contends that in presence of two cross-versions, it is yet to be determined as to who is the aggressor, hence it is a case of further inquiry. In addition to above, he contends that no weapon of offence has been recovered from the petitioners who are behind the bars since August, 2004.

3. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the State contends that it is correct that occurrence had taken place on 11-8-2004 at 6 p.m. and the F.I.R. No.730 of 2004 was registered at 12-30 a.m. on 12-8-2004. He further contends that Muhammad Hameed gave application to S.H.O. on 12-8-2004 but his cross-version was recorded on 13-8-2004, which fact stands embodied in the police record. He contends that Sota has been recovered from petitioner Muhammad Waris. He also contends that offence under section 337-A(iii), P.P.C. provides 10 years imprisonment along with Arsh and the offence also falls under prohibitory clause. The other accused are yet to be arrested. He adds that one Muhammad Anwar has also been arrested from the other side.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and the record has also been seen.

5. Both the learned counsel for the parties agree that there are cross-versions of the occurrence. It is also clear from the record that people from both sides have been injured. Several persons are nominated from both sides, majority of them are still at large. Concession of bail at this stage, under above circumstances, is likely to cause more harm. Sota has been recovered from petitioner Muhammad Waris who caused two injuries on the person of Muhammad Hameed, on his forehead and nose. The petitioner Muhammad Akram has also caused two injuries on the person of Muhammad Ibrahim. Therefore, it does not seem appropriate to grant concession of bail at this stage. In view of the above discussion, this application is dismissed. H.B.T./M-963/L Bail application dismissed.