1993 P Cr (PLP)

Sohail Dar for Respondent No.l. Muhammad Iqbal for the State. Date of hearing: 5th May, 1991. This is an application for cancellation anticipatory bail granted to the respondent namely Ali Qadir Abbas in a case registered against him and others at Police Station Saddar Okara on 10th November, 1990 under sections 148, 324 and 337-A read with section 149, P.P.C.

2. The prosecution case briefly is that as a sequel of election rivalry the petitioner and his three co-accused armed with Sotas and one carrying a pistol waylaid Muhammad Ali and while Malik Iftikhar Ali caught hold of him, the respondent and his co-accused caused him injuries with Sotas. The respondent was alleged to have inflicted an injury on the right side of the head of Muhammad Ali.

3. On medical examination, no injury was found on the right side of the head of Muhammad Ali. However, one injury was observed on the left side of his head. The injury after having been kept under observation was subsequently declared as grievous.

4. The respondent on his application was granted anticipatory bail by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Okara vide his order dated 11th December, 1990 on account of the facts firstly that there was a discrepancy between the F.I.R. and the medico-legal report with regard to the injury ascribed to him and secondly that he was declared innocent during investigation of the case.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the grounds which have prevailed with the learned Additional Sessions Judge in allowing anticipatory bail to the respondent may be valid for post-arrest bail but arc not sufficient to grant anticipatory bail. He has cited Murad Khan v. Fazal-e- Subhan and another P L D 1983 SC 82 and Ziaul Hassan v. The State P L D 1984 SC 1912. Learned counsel for the State supports him.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent had contended that there existed sufficient grounds for granting anticipatory bail to the respondent and that now when the challan has already been submitted and the trial commenced there is no justification for cancelling the bail. He ha "relied upon Sher Muhammad Khan v. Muhammad Ashraf Khan Tareen and others 1991 S C M R 231.

7. It is not controverted that there is conflict between the F.I.R. and the medico-legal report in respect of the location of the injury attributed to the, respondent and that the respondent during investigation was declared as innocent. In view of these two facts, it cannot be said that the order granting anticipatory bail to the respondent suffers from perversity. I, therefore, do not feel inclined to cancel the bail. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. N.H.Q./N-157/L Petition dismissed.