1995 PLP 1256 (MLD)

Lal Khan Baloch for the Complainant. Tabinda Islam for the State. Shamsul Hassan, petitioner, has moved this petition for grant of bail before arrest. A case F.I.R. No.702 dated 13‑9‑iy94 offence under sections 324, 335, 148 and 149, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Langrana, District Jhang.

2. The F.I.R. in this case was lodged by Muhammad Javaid Shah. He alleged in the F.I.R. that on the night between 26/27 of August 1994, about 11‑15 p.m., Shamsul Hassan etc. 12 accused armed with fire‑arms attacked the complainant party from three directions. It was a moon lit night and all the 12 accused continued firing at the complainant party for fifteen minutes. The fire by the petitioner hit the forehead and right eye of the complainant. Thereafter the accused left the spot. The cause of the attack was a dispute regarding the possession of agricultural land between them. Earlier, a case on behalf of the accused party was registered under section 324/447/148/149 etc. P.P.C. against the complainant party which is under investigation.

3. The occurrence admittedly took place on the night between 26/27 but the report was lodged after 18 days. Injury to the eye was ‑kept under observation and was referred to the Eye‑Specialist, D.H.O., Faisalabad who reported that "there is only sub‑conjunctional haemorrhage in the eye. Otherwise eye is perfectly normal including the Fundus". Under the orders of the District Magistrate, Medical Board was constituted which after the receipt of the report of Radiologist and Orthal‑Moligest, reported that "keeping in view the opinion of the Radiologist and Opthalmologist, the Board is of the opinion with regard to injury No.2 that it is under section 335 (Itlaf‑i -Salahiyyat‑i‑udw).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner alleged that it took 18 days for the complainant party to widen the net to implicate all family members of the opposite‑party and that if there are two conflicting medical reports on the same subject, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.

5. The petitioner after grant of interim bail has joined the investigation A and he was no more required for the purpose of investigation. His wife co‑accused was already admitted to bail before arrest by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

6. I have perused the record and have heard the learned counsel for the parties. There is a long delay in lodging of the F.I.R. and the parties are at dagger's drawn and there is a possibility of false implication of the petitioner in the case. Therefore, in the peculiar circumstances of the case as narrated above I am inclined to confirm the interim bail granted to the petitioner. He is directed to furnish fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Magistrate/A.C., Chiniot. H.B.T./S‑675/L Interim bail confirmed.