2009 PLP 829 (YLR)

The learned counsel seeks post arrest bail of petitioners who are implicated in F.I.R. No.1032/08, dated 24-8-2008. The said F.I.R. was registered under sections 324, 452, 427, 148 and 149, P.P.C. to be read with section 7 of ATA, registered at P.S. North Cantt., Lahore.

2. Briefly, according to the F.I.R, while complainant and his brother were sitting in front of their house, the petitioner No.1 and his younger brother along with 3/4 persons drove past their tractor-trolley in a rash and negligent manner. They also hit into a car of complainant's guest. When complainant's brother protested against the above conduct of the petitioner and his brother, they stated hurling abuses and also criminally assaulted the complainant, etc. At the same time, petitioners also called somebody on mobile phone. Though the complainant informed police on No.15 but before they could arrive, the accused persons 32/35 in number arrived in three--cars and motor-bicycles, in response to call made by petitioner No.1. All of them were armed with fire-arm weapons. The complainant's brother, Muhammad Naveed was caused fire-arm injuries into his legs. Thereafter, accused persons forced their entry into house of the complainant and caused injuries to his father, Muhammad Yousaf, and younger brother, Muhammad Khalil with fire-arm weapons into their legs.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, cross-version was recorded from their side as both petitioners were also caused injuries, which fact is supported by M.L.Rs. Nos.1694 and 1695. According to him, police `karwai' also shows that an application for registration of case was presented by the petitioner No.1 but instead of registration of case, same was treated as a cross-version in that instant F.I.R.

4. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General, Punjab assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that petitioners were arrested by the police from the house of the complainant. The petitioners might have caused self-inflicted injuries to themselves to build or structure a counter case. Moreover, according to him, cross-version during the course of investigation was disbelieved, hence cancelled.

5. We have heard and considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. It is undisputed that three persons were caused fire-arm injuries. Role of both petitioners is expressly narrated in the F.I.R. and supported by statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners has tried to build up his case on basis of stance of cross version but since the same was disbelieved during the course of investigation. Thus the petitioners cannot take advantage of that. Apparently, this fact was conceded by the petitioners side impliedly that is why they did not file private complainant or moved for change of investigation. In the above background, the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners lose their colour and fade away. The offence is also covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Thus, in view of the above grounds/ reasons, this bail application is dismissed. N.H.Q./M-452/L Bail refused.