1977 (PLP)

Abdul Aziz Qureshi for Petitioners. Rao Hamid Mukhtar for the State. This is an application for bail in a case under section 302/34, P. P. C. registered against the petitioners on 11‑8‑1975 at Police Station, Sarai Alamgir. They were arrested the next day and since then are in Jail. According to the F. I. R. one Naik Alam was in possession of some shamlat land. It is alleged that 15/16 days earlier than the day of occurrence, the petitioner No. 1, through his cattle destroyed the grass on the aforesaid land, on which Naik Alam gave him abuses. The petitioner insulted Naik Alam. However, the village people got the matter sorted out. Muhammad Yaqoob, nephew of Naik Alam, who was employed in the Army, came on ,5 days leave and was told about the insult given to Naik Alam. On the day of occurrence, he was coming along when he was attacked. 'The petitioner No. 1 grabbed him and the petitioner No. 2 attacked with a kulhari which hit Muhammad Yaqoob on the head and the latter fell down. It was added that the petitioners were also given injuries by the complainant party. The two accuse t moved for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Gujrat but their application was dismisses' on 20‑4‑1976. The petitioners applied to this Court for bail in which, notice was issued by my learned brother Mr. Justice M. S. H. Qureshi

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners. Were attacked by the complainant side and the petitioners suffered as many as 19 injuries, 11 by the petitioner No. 1 including two grievous injuries and 8 by petitioner No. 2 including one grievous injury on the head. The petitioners have also lodged private complaint in respect of the same occur rence. It is submitted that the narration of facts given in the F. I. R. is not correct in so far as that it is alleged that the deceased was given a kulhari blow whereas according to the Medical report, the solitary injury on the deceased was by a blunt weapon. It is, finally, contended that as regards the petitioner No. 1 the only allegation against him is that he caught hold of the deceased before the petitioner No 2 attacked the latter. Learned counsel has referred to Muhammad Aslam v. The State (P L J 1975 Cr. C. (Lah.) 30) and to Mst. Shafiqan v. Hashmat Ali and others (1972 S C M R 682) for the proposition that the petitioners, in the circumstances, are entitle) to bail.

3. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application on the grounds that the petitioners are accused of offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life and are not entitled to bail. It is next con tended that it was immaterial that the Doctor opined that the injury on the. Deceased was by blunt weapon even though it was said in the F.

1. R. that the injury was caused by a sharp‑edged weapon.

4. On the side of the complainant, the deceased had got 3 injuries: ‑ (1) Contused wound 1 " x 1/3" x bone deep on left head 3 " above left ear. (2) Abraded area 2 'x 1" on back of right elbow‑joint. (3) Abrasion 1/2" x 1/3" on right upper arm. On the side of the accused, the two petitioners had received as many as 19 injuries, 11 and 8 respectively, out of which there were two grievous injuries on the petitioner No. 1 and one grievous on the petitioner No.

2. It is apparent that the petitioners had got good thrashing. In the F. I. R., it was stated that the complainant had inflicted injuries on the accused persons but neither the occasion, manner, nor, number of injuries was given. The circumstances in which the occurrence had come about in which the peti tioners received as many as 19 injuries out of which three were grievous are not clear to show that the petitioners had committed the offences punish able with death or imprisonment for life or for 10 years rigorous imprison ment. Any benefit of doubt has naturally to go to the accused. There is counter‑version of the occurrence. The matter appears to require further enquiry as to who was the aggressor and how the petitioners had received as many as 19 injuries of the nature described above when the other side had got only three injuries out of which one happened to be fatal. The petitioners have already been in jail nearly for a year. The trial is not in sight. In all the circumstances of the case, relying on the case of Muhammad Aslam aforementioned, the petitioners are allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 20,000 (rupees twenty thousand) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Kharian. Bail allowed.