1992 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑‑‑S. 497(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.307/326/324/34‑‑‑Bail, grant of Accused had allegedly caused grievous injury with a sharp‑edged weapon‑‑‑No mala fides on the part of police to involve the accused falsely could be shown‑‑ Offence under S.326, P.P.C. also fell within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. ‑‑Bail was consequently not allowed to accused. Rana Taj Mahmood Khan for Petitioners. This is an application for bail on behalf of Maqbool Ahmad alias Kooli and Muhammad Hanif petitioners in case section 307/326/324/34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Sadar, Sahiwal vide F.I.R, No.90/85, dated 16‑6‑1985.

2. The prosecution case is that t e petitioners and two others in the prosecution of their common intention launched murderous assault on Nazir Ahmad, Ghulam Muhammad, Mst. Bushra and Mst. Amina Bibi and thereby caused injuries to them.

3. As for the petitioners, it has been alleged that Maqbool Ahmad was armed with a hatchet. He gave one hatchet glow on the person of Nazir Ahmad. Muhammad Hanif was allegedly armed with a hatchet and he inflicted injuries to Nazir Ahmad P.W. The medical legal reports indicate that Nazir Ahmad had received three injuries. Out of which two were caused by sharp- edged weapon and the 3rd one with a blunt weapon. Out of these injuries, injury No.1 which was on the outer part of the hip of the Nazir Ahmad was declared grievous. Mst. Bushra received five simple injuries caused by blunt weapon. Mst. Amina received four injuries with blunt weapons out of which injury No.1 was found grievous.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners have committed the alleged offences. Muhammad Hanif did not cause any grievous injury; that although Maqbool Ahmad has allegedly caused grievous injury with sharp‑edged weapon yet he having been involved falsely and on account of mala fides is also entitled to the concession of pre‑arrest bail. On the other hand the learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the plea for bail of the petitioners on the ground that the alleged offence fails within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I feel persuaded to partly agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners inasmuch as the injury assigned to Muhammad Hanif has been declared simple and as such the question of his vicarious liability requires further‑inquiry within the section 497(2), Cr.P.C.

6. As for Maqbool Ahmad, I find that he allegedly caused grievous injury with sharp‑edged weapon. The learned counsel has not been able to make out a case of mala fides on the part of the police to involve the petitioner falsely and that the offence punishable under section 326, P.P.C. falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

7. For what has been said above, the interim bail granted to Muhammad Hanif is hereby confirmed and the plea for the bail of Maqbool Ahmad is rejected. N.H.Q./M‑518/L Order accordingly.