1978 PLP 171 (SCMR)

Mrs. Aslam Chattha, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. l Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 21st January 1978. NASIM HASAN SHAH. J.‑By this petition the petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 27.8‑1977, whereby the respondent was granted bail.

2. As a result of an F. I. R. lodged with Police Station' Chakwal, District Jhelum, by the complaint‑petitioner Muhammad Nazis, a cast under section 302/ 34, P P. C. Was registered against Muhammad Sadiq (respondent No. 1 herein"). his wife Miss. Rashida Begum and his son Zahoor Ahmad for the murder of Allah Ditto, father‑in‑law of the complainant petitioner. According to the allegation in the F, I. R. some five or six days prior to the occurrence, Zahoor Abroad co‑accused son of respondent No. t tried to molest the daughter of the petitioner but the latter managed to escape and ran back to her house. This led to an exchange of hot words between Muhammad Sadiq, respondent No. 1 and the complainant but on the Intervention of ore Ghulam Yasin the matter ended there. On the day of occurrence, at about 7‑15 p. m., this said Zahoor Abroad holding a radio switched at a high pitch went up and down the street in front of the complainant‑petitioner s house. This was objected to by Allah Ditta (deceased) whereupon the said Zahoor Ahmad accused went back to his house. However, a little while later, he returned armed with a chhuri He was accompanied by respondent No. 1 who was armed with a hockey stick, and his wife Mst. Rashida Begum who was armed with adanda. Respondent No. 1 and his wife immediately caught hold of Allah Ditta deceased and Zahoor Abroad co‑accused stabbed him in his abdomen. At that stage, the complainant‑petitioner tried to intervene whereupon respondent No. 1 and his wife attacked him with their respective weapons, namely hockey stick and danda, which obliged the complainant‑petitioner to throw brick‑bats at respon dent No. 1 and his wife in self‑defence. On hearing the alarm, Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Siddiq and Karam Ilahi reached the spot and rescued the complainant. Allah Ditta was then taken to the hospital in unconscious state but on arrival there he succumbed to his inhale. All the three accused having been arrested by the police, respondent No. 1 and his wife Mst. Rashida Begum co‑accused applied for bail in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Jhelum as a result of which Mst. Rashida was released on bail, vide order dated 24‑5‑1977. However, the bail application filed by respondent No. 1 was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, by his order dated 13‑7‑1977. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No. 1 moved a bail application before the Lahore High Court, which was accepted on the considerations that he stabbing of the deceased could be an individual act, that the injuries spoilers by Muhammad Nazir complainant were abrasions and contusions and simple in capture, while the accused person were also injured and in all had suffered la injuries, but no explanation was forthcoming in the F. I. R. with respect to the large number of injuries sustained try the accused party. In the circumstances it was considered to be a case of further inquiry.

3. Mr. Shahzad Jahangir in support of this petition for special leave to appeal has submitted that the learned Single Judge is the High Court hat failed to exercise his discretion properly in that the material before him was sufficient to show that there were reasonable grounds for believing that respondent No. 1 was guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprison ment for life. He contends that the contents of the F. I. R. did explain the injuries sustained by the respondent side. On the other hand, the version of the complaint was supported by three eye‑witnesses, the Medico‑Legal Report and the recovery of the hockey which expressly inculpates respondent No.1.

4. We have heard the learned counsel and gone through the available record with his assistance. We are of the view that although an attempt has been made in the F. I. R. to explain the injuries sustained by the respondent side but the injuries do not appear to be consistent with the medical evidence as they could no prima facie, be caused by brickbats. It is also a question for consideration whether the petitioner who had himself got injured could have caused as many as 18 injuries to the respondent side by throwing brick‑bats. In view of the circumstances surrounding the occurrence the question as to who is the actual aggressor does require to be ascertained. We, therefore, think that the learned Judge had rightly exercised his discretion in granting bail to respondent No. 1 as it does appear to be a fit case for further inquiry within the ambit of section 497(2), Cr. P. C. This petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.