1989 PLP 778 (MLD)

2. The occurrence in this case had taken place on 14‑11‑1988. The injured was examined on same day. He was found to have suffered 24 injuries, 11 of which were declared simple at the time of medical examination while the remaining 13 were kept under observation. After X‑Ray examination, opinion was Oven about them on 29‑11‑1988. According to that opinion, three of the injuries were declared grievous. The F.I.R. was registered on the same day, i.e. 29‑11‑1988.

3. The respondents moved for anticipatory bail. Although interim bail was allowed yet ultimately the petition was dismissed on 20‑12‑1988. Learned Additional Sessions Judge while dismissing the petition for pre‑arrest bail, observed that, `in view of the alleged highhandedness of the petitioners I do not consider them eligible for bail'. The same Additional Sessions Judge thereafter allowed post‑arrest bail to the respondents vide order dated 25‑1‑1989. The only grounds mentioned in the order are that the respondents were no longer required for investigation and the injured had been discharged from the hospital. The other thing noted by the Additional Sessions Judge was that the parties appeared to be inimical and so the matter was stiff: open to further enquiry.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents were granted bail by the Additional Sessions Judge on erroneous grounds; that they had mercilessly given beating to a person; that the Additional Sessions Judge should not have granted bail after so short a time after dismissing their petition for pre‑arrest bail only a few days ago. Learned counsel cited Abdul Sattar and another v. The State P L D 1987 SC 1424 in support of the argument that persons charged for having caused a large number of injuries, were not allowed bail.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that the impugned order does not call for any interference. Learned counsel submitted that even though it is not mentioned in the impugned order yet the fact remains that the F.I.R. in this case was lodged after 15 days in spite of the fact that the injured had also been examined on the day of occurrence. Learned counsel stated that the complainants in the position taken up later during investigation, had stated that Farhat alias Ferry respondent was not a real culprit and instead Faisal was the real culprit. According to him Faisal was arrested by the police. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that there is no complaint against the respondents of misusing the concession of bail.

6. Learned counsel for the State has not supported the cancellation of bail.

7. The position taken up by learned counsel for the respondents about Farhat alias Ferry respondent has been accepted to be correct by the A.S.I. who is present with record. This fact has also not been countered by learned counsel for the petitioner. His case, therefore, stands on a different footing. So far as the A other two respondents are concerned, they alongwith one more person are charged for having belaboured a person mercilessly by inflicting as many as 24 injuries, 3 of which have been declared grievous. The contention of learned counsel for the respondents that the F.I.R. in this case was lodged with delay, stands explained in view of the fact that the doctor had not expressed opinion about the nature of injuries. Obviously the police might have refused to register the case for that reason. The case was registered exactly on the day when the doctor had expressed opinion about nature of the injuries. In the circumstances, this petition is allowed, to the extent of respondents Zahid Iqbal and Aftab Ahmad. The order of bail passed by the Additional Sessions Judge qua them is set aside. They shall be taken into custody. The petition qua Farhat alias Ferry respondent No.3 is dismissed in view of the fact that even according to the complainant party he had not participated in the occurrence. H.B.T./I‑116/L Petition allowed.