2005 PLP 424 (MLD)

Zafar Iqbal Chohan for Petitioners. Muhammad Khalid Sajjad Khan for the Complainant. Muhammad Aslam Bhatti for the State. Date of hearing: 21st February, 2003. Through this petition Muhammad Ramzan son of Muhammad Khan, Muhammad Suleman, Muhammad Hayat, Said Khan, Ashiq Rasool and Muhammad Ramzan son of Abdul Rehman petitioners have sought post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.21 'registered at Police Station Jaura Kalan, District Khushab on 25‑5‑2002 for offences under sections 148/302/324/337‑A(ii)/149, P.P.C.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that admittedly none of the present petitioners had caused any injury to Abdul Rauf deceased. According to the F.I.R. Muhammad Ramzan son of Muhammad Khan petitioner No. 1 and Muhammad Suleman petitioner No.2 had only indulged in ineffective firing and admittedly they had not caused any injury to any person. The injury attributed to Muhammad Hayat petitioner No.3 on the left lower leg of Barkhurdar P.W. was on a non‑vital part of the body of the said witness. The injury attributed to Ashiq Rasool petitioner No.5 on the head of Naib Rasool P. W. was declared to be simple in nature. Said Khan petitioner No.4 and Muhammad Ramzan son of Abdul Rehman petitioner No.6 had allegedly caused hatchet blows on the head of Said Rasool complainant along with Ghulam Rasool co‑accused but instead of three injuries the complainant had sustained only two injuries on head and, thus, it is not readily discernible as to whether the allegations against these two petitioners are factually correct or not. The case in hand is one of two versions, one advanced by the complainant party in the F.I.R. and the other advanced by the accused party through a statement made by Muhammad Khan co‑accused of the petitioners before the Investigating Officer. From the complainant's side one person had lost his life and three others had sustained injuries and the total number of injuries sustained by the complainant party was seven. As against that as many as seven persons belonging to the accused party had sustained 35 injuries on different parts of their bodies and such injuries had been caused by fire‑arm, sharp‑edged and blunt weapons. It may be relevant to mention here that according to the F. I. R. only one person belonging to the accused party and received injuries at the hands of the complainant party and the F.I.R. is completely silent regarding injuries sustained by the other six persons belonging to the accused party. During various investigations of this case different Investigating Officers had arrived at different conclusions and in the last investigation it had conclusively been opined that it was the complainant party of this case which had aggressed against the accused party and resultantly a challan has already been submitted in this case depicting the complainant party as the aggressor party. In these circumstances it is yet to be established before the learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence as to which party was in fact the aggressor. As already observed above, the challan in this case has already been submitted and, thus, continued custody of the petitioners in jail is not likely to serve any beneficial purpose at this stage. The petitioners have already spent about eight months in jail in connection with this case.

3. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioners calls for further inquiry into their guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioners are admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./M‑765/L Bail granted.