2003 PLP 846 (YLR)

Shafi Muhammad Memon for Applicants. Rasheed Ahmad Qureshi, Asstt. A.‑G. for the State. Both these bail applications are arising out from the same F.I.R. which I propose to dispose of them through this common order. Briefly stated the facts of F.I.R. No.70 of 2002 of Police Station Rukkan, Taluka Dadu are that on 6‑10‑2002 complainant party had some dispute with the accused party regarding the hedge, which divided the houses of the two. At about 6‑00 p.m. on 5‑10‑2002, when the complainant alongwith his brother Fateh Khan, nephews Bahadur Ali, Saifal were sitting in the hotel of Ramzan. Accused Haji. Anwar, Ali Asghar, Bashir, Khalid, Rustam and Deedar out of whom Ali Asghar was carrying a single-barrel gun, while remaining accused were armed with Lathies. Accused Haji Anwar challenged them and instigated the other accused to beat the complainant party. On this accused Ali Asghar tired in the air and caused a butt blow on the head of Fateh Khan the brother of complainant and so also the remaining accused caused Lathi injuries to said Fateh Khan on his head, back arms and other parts of the body. Hence the F.I.R. On the foregoing facts and. circumstances, learned counsel has submitted that admittedly there is some enmity between the parties and hence at this stage false implication cannot be ruled out. Secondly, per learned counsel there are general allegations against all the accused persons, which is not borne out from the injuries which have been received by Fateh Khan. Finally he has submitted that as per medical certificate, four injuries are simple in nature, whereas only one is grievous, for which the punishment is only five years, whereas the rest are simply in nature, for which the punishment is only two years, each, hence the offences are not covered under the prohibitory clause. He therefore, prays that bail be granted to the arrested accused viz. Khalid and Deedar in Cr. B.A. No.617 of 2002 and also to those, who have yet not been arrested viz. Haji Anwar, Ali Asghar, Bashir and Rustam in Cr. B.A. No.618 of 2002. On the other hand learned State Counsel has opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the F.I.R. clearly implicates all the accused by name and that the allegations have been corroborated by the medical certificate which shows that as many as 6 injuries have been received by Fateh Khan, out of which one at least was grievous, in nature and is a head injury. I have heard both the learned counsel. In my view at the present moment, the investigation is over and the challan has been submitted. The offences with which the accused are charged, are not covered by the prohibitory clause, and so also there appears to some enmity between the parties in which case false implication cannot be ruled out. As far as the injuries received by Fateh Khan are concerned as to who caused the same this could only be determined by the trial Court. For all the foregoing reasons I would confirm interim pre‑arrest bail granted to the accused in Criminal Bail Application No.618 of 2002 provided they submit surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 each along with P.R. bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. Similarly bail is granted to the accused in Criminal Bail Application No.617 of 2002 on the same terms and conditions. N.H.Q./K‑67/K Bail granted.