2001 PLP 2055 (YLR)

I.H. Shah on behalf of Ch. Muhammad Aslam Hari for Petitioner. Ms. Nausheen Taskeen for the State. Through this bail application the petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.110 of 2001 registered on 23‑5‑2001 under sections 337‑F5, 337‑L2, 337‑AI, 148 and 149, P.P.C. with Police Station Shahbore District Okara, on the statement of Mushtaq Ali for an occurrence which took place on 9‑5‑2001 at 5‑00 p.m.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant claimed that he is resident of Chak No.44/2‑L and is a Zamindar. He had thrashed out the wheat from crops on the date of occurrence. Muhammad Ashraf alias Kala let loose his animals in the barseem of the complainant. The complainant asked him not to do so. He abused and was armed with a sota. The complainant also abused. in reply and also turned out the animals from his barseem. In the meanwhile Ali Ahmad father of the petitioner, Ismail, Muhammad Anwar and Munawar cousins of the petitioner also came armed with sotas. Ismail raised a lalkara, Muhammad Ashraf caused a sota blow on the back of his right hand while the second blow was given by Ali Ahmad which hit the complainant on his back. The third sota blow caused by Muhammad Anwar on the back of the complainant. The fourth blow was made by Munawar hitting the complainant on his nose.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is a delay of 14 days in lodging the F.I.R. which casts serious doubt. He further contends that the occurrence took place on 9‑5‑2001 at 5‑00 p.m. while the examination of the complainant was conducted by the doctor on the next day at 7‑00 p.m. after about twenty‑six hours and the duration of the injuries have been given by him as six hours. This shows that the injuries have not been received by the complainant during the occurrence which occurred on 9‑5‑2001 at 5‑00 p.m. He also contends that the medical evidence is in contradiction with the ocular account. He also contends that the application was moved for the examination of the complainant through Medical Board. He has been summoned by the Medical Board thrice and has not appeared before the Medical Board which was constituted for ascertaining the nature of injuries on the person of the complainant. He further contends that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the bail application on the ground that the petitioner has committed a heinous offence. He is named in the F.I.R. and specific role has been ascribed to him and he is not entitled to the grant of bail.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. The petitioner Muhammad Ashraf and his colleague have been involved in a case in which the maximum punishment under section 337‑F5, P.P.C. is five years R.I. and sections 337‑Al and 337‑L2 are bailable. In such‑like cases grant of bail is a rule as has been laid down in judgment reported as Tariq Bashir and five others v. The State PLD 1995 SC 34 and refusal is an exception. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are borne out from the record that the F.I.R. has been lodged with a delay of 14 hours without any explanation and ascribing the roles to the accused persons in such like F.I.R. is not of any importance. The injuries on the person of the complainant were examined after such a long time and non‑appearance of the complainant before the Medical Board who had called him thrice prima facie makes out a case of further inquiry. The petitioner's case does not fall within the exception hence he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

5. This application is disposed of. H.B.T./M‑729/L Bail granted.