1974 P Cr (PLP)

Ch. Bashir Ahmad Khan for Petitioner. M. Zafar Yasin for the State. Police files in both the cross‑cases are with the learned counsel for the State. I have perused the relevant parts thereof. Both the learned counsel have agreed that the main petition may be heard.

2. The case initially registered against the petitioners's party was under section 308, P .P. C. According to the last report in the police file, section 315 P. P. C. was added on account of the opinion of the doe or that the injuries found on the person of Jabbar P.W. were declared grievous by the doctor. The case registered against the opposite‑party is under section 326, P. P. C. On the side of the petitioner, three persons have been injured, namely, Mst. Ladma, Chhotey Khan and Mauj Khan. In all, nine injuries were found on their persons. On the side of the complainant party (in this case) three reasons are injured. Jabbar had two injuries on his head. Saifullah and Surjit had one and three injuries respectively. The total number is six. Except for the three injuries on Mst. Ladma, all other injuries on both the parties are with blunt weapon and accept for the one injury on Mst. Ladma with sharp‑edged weapon' and the two injuries on Jabbar with blunt weapons, all other injuries are simple.

3. After going through the relevant material and hearing the learned counsel I agree with the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that pima facie, the version of the prosecution in tie case disclosed even in the F. I. R. Shows that it was a sudden fight in which Both the parties got injured. In the case registered at the instance of the petitioner's party the last report sub mitted by the Investigating Officer is for cancellation thereof. I have carefully gone through the report which appears to be a strined one. The Sub- Inspector has tried to argue that a possibility could not be excluded that the injuries on the person of Mst. Ladma might gave been self‑inflicted or self-suffered. But near about the end of the report, he also visualised the possibility that they might have been suffered at the hands of the adversary party and in that case he thought that the said party was entitled to exercise of right of private defence on account of grievous injuries on the person of Jabbar. On the basis of this reasoning; he thought that Jabbar's party, i.e., the complaint party in the present case, did not commit any offence. There fore, even, according to the Investigating. Officer's final report, the basis of his opinion is not that the petitioner's party did not suffer any injury at all. Moreover, I do not agree that all the injuries suffered by the petitioner's party could have been self‑suffered. For example, injury No. 4 on the person of Mauj Khan is on the head and appears to have been caused at the hands of an adversary.

4. Keeping in view all the circumstances of the case, I do not think that the initial registration of the case against the petitioner's party for an offence under section 308, P.P.C. was, in any way, on account of a favour being shown to them. The addition of the offence under section 324, P. P. C. appears to be for technical reason because the doctor gave the opinion that Jabbar had suffered grievous injuries. There is force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a fair possibility cannot be excluded that instead of 325, P. P. C., the petitioner might be convicted only under section 335, P. P. C. .In any case, the facts and circumstances of the case are such' that section 308 being bailable and section 325, even if non‑bailable, is not included in the prohibited field as provided in sub-section (1) of section 497, Cr. P. C., in exercise of discretion. I consider it a fit case for bail. This petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail if he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

5. Observations made in this order shall not influence the course of trial and/or the decision in the case. Bail allowed.