2013 PLP 285 (MLD)

RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, J.

The petitioners seek post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.277 of 2010 dated 20-7-2010, Police Station Saddar Rajanpur registered on the statement of Eisa under, sections 337-A(ii)/ 337-A (i)/148/149, P.P.C. Subsequently cross version put forth by Rab Nawaz through Report No.22 dated 17-7-2010 was also brought on the record, wherein he had alleged that petitioner Ismail armed with hatchet, petitioner Ibrahim armed with 'sota' along with their co-accused persons, who were also armed with hatchet and 'sotas' made an attack on Rab Nawaz due to dispute over watering of fields and caused Qatl-e-Amad of Fayyaz and injuries to Allah Ditta and Rab Nawaz. After demise of Fayyaz section 302, P.P.C. was added.

2. Allegedly Ibrahim petitioner had given blows with 'sota' on the back of Allah Dina and shoulder of Rab Nawaz, whereas Ismail petitioner had given blows with hatchet on the head of Allah Ditta and head of Rab Nawaz. It was further alleged that Tariq co-accused gave blow to Fayyaz on his back, whereas Abdul Raheem gave blow with hatchet on the head of Fayyaz, who subsequently succumbed to the injuries.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in fact Rab Nawaz etc., had made an attack and caused the injuries to Ismail, Ibrahim and Eisa and the case was reported to the police but the cross version was put forth with malice; that the petitioner did not cause any injury to Fayyaz deceased and injury attributed to Ibrahim is punishable under section 337-F(i), whereas the injury attributed to Ismail is punishable under section 337-A(ii); that it was a case of two versions put forth by both the parties and it would be determined only after recording of evidence and appraisal of the same as to who had launched the attack; that it was not a pre-meditated occurrence and open fight, broke out at the spur of the moment so the question of sharing common intention will also be determined after recording of evidence and that the injuries sustained by the petitioners were not disclosed in the cross version.

4. The learned counsel for the complainant and learned Deputy Prosecutor General have vehemently opposed the petition. It is contended that both the petitioners are specifically nominated in the F.I.R.; that the factum of sustaining the injuries ipso facto is sufficient to establish their presence at the time of occurrence so they are connected with the commission of the offence as is alleged by the prosecution and are not entitled to the concession of bail because the offence allegedly committed by them falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and that the weapons of offence have been recovered on their pointation and disclosure so the ocular account is duly corroborated by the medical evidence and the recoveries.

5. There are two cross versions put forth by the rival parties. One is embodied in the F.I.R. recorded on the statement of Eisa and the other in the cross version put forth by Rab Nawaz. Admittedly the persons from both sides were injured so it would be determined only after recording of evidence and on appraisal of the same as to who had launched the aggression. From the material collected during investigation it is obvious that the fight broke out at the spur of moment and both sets of accused took part in it so the question of vicarious liability would also be determined at the later stage. The medical certificates reveal that both the petitioners and Eisa from the side of accused party were also injured and their injuries were not disclosed in the complaint. The persons of the petitioners are no more required for further investigation. The case clearly needs further probe and inquiry within the meanings of section 497(2), Cr.P.C.

6. For the reasons supra, this petition is accepted and the petitioners are admitted, to post arrest bail in the sum of Rs.100,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. HBT/I-38/L Bail granted.