1990 P Cr (PLP)

The brief facts of the present bail petition are that an F.I.R. No.105/89, dated 11-6-1989 was registered at Police Station Sahiwal, District Sargodha, against the present petitioner and two others under section 307/365/34, P.P.C.

2. According to the F.I.R., the present petitioners along with their co -accused Maqbool and Ijaz being armed with .12 bore Pistol entered into the house of the complainant, a day earlier to the registration of the complaint, and that the co-accused Maqbool, the husband of the daughter of the complainant shouted that he had come to take his wife Mst. Ghulam Sakina, but as she was not present at the house, therefore, the accused caught hold of Mst. Kantzan, another daughter of the complainant and walked away. Whereupon the complainant and his son Sardar, his brother Ramzan and his nephew Muhammad Rafique gave a chase. Thereupon, the accused having covered a distance of 2-1/2 acres, the co-accused Maqbool fired from his .12 bore gun which hit the right side of the chest of Sardar, the son of the complainant, the second fire was by Manzoor, petitioner No.2, which hit Sardar on the right shoulder, the third shot fired by Muhammad Hayat, petitioner No.1. hit him in the abdomen. It is further alleged that co-accused Ijaz fired ineffectively. It is further alleged that Ramzan, brother of the complainant, was hit on the right side of his waist by Manzoor co- accused by butt of his gun, when he intervened, and that he was hit on the shoulder by the co-accused Maqbool with the butt of his gun. Thereafter the accused left Mst. Kanizan and fled away while firing from their respective guns.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends for bail on the following grounds:- (i) That according to the F.I.R. itself no offence under section 365, P.P.C. is made out, and it has been so held by the trial Court. (ii) That there is delay of 12 hours in lodging of the complaint and that there is no explanation for the same, giving rise to the suspicion that the F.I.R. has been lodged after due deliberation and that, therefore, it is a case of further inquiry. (iii) That the injury attributed to petitioner No.1 is said to have been caused in the abdomen of Sarder injured P.W. but the samse is contradicted by the Medico-legal Report as according to the said report Sardar has not suffered any such injury in his abdomen. (iv) That the injury attributed to petitioner No.2 is simple in nature and not on vital part of the body of Sardar as it is on the right upper arm. To support his contentions the learned counsel relied upon Muhammad Niaz and another v. The State 1987 P Cr. L J 2247, wherein the bail was anted to the accused charged under section 302, P.P.C. as the Sota blow attributed to him was not borne out by the medico-legal report, Ahmad Yar and two others v. The State N.L.R. 1983 Crl. 102, wherein bail was granted as the stick injuries on the chest of the deceased were not supported by the post-mortem report, and Riaz v. State 1984 M L D 1282 wherein the accused was granted bail in a case under section 307/323/325/147/148, P.P.C. as it was held that he had used the wrong side of the hatchet and had caused only simple injury to the P.Ws.

4. The learned counsel for the State opposes the bail but concedes that section 365, P.P.C. is not applicable to the facts of the present case and confirms that the injury attributed to petitioner No.1 have been caused in the abdomen of Sardar P.W. is not borne out by the medico-legal report Annexure `D', and that the injury attributed to petitioner No.2 is simple and is on the non-vital part of the body and has not been declared to be dangerous to life.

5. In view of what has been conceded and confirmed by the learned counsel for the State, as stated above, the injury attributed to petitioner No.l not being borne out by the medico-legal report, the injury attributed to petitioner No.2 being simple and not having been declared dangerous to life and placing reliance on the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.30,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Shahpur, District Sargodha. S.A./M-1893/L Bail allowed.