1988 PLP 41(2) (MLD)

S. Sarfraz Ahmed A.A.‑G. for the State. The applicants arc facing trial alongwith others under sections 307, 324, 323, 147, 148, 114 and 506, P.P.C. on the allegation that they had caused injuries to complainant Abdul Ghaffar and P.W. Ghulam Muhammad over dispute of water rotation. The applicants and the co‑accused applied for bail before the learned Sessions Judge who was pleased to grant bail to 3 co‑accused, while the bail application of the present applicants was rejected vide order dated 21st October 1987. It has been contended by Mr. Rehman Bux that the medical certificates were doubtful documents and appeared to have been obtained by arrangement inasmuch as the Mashirnamas of injuries which were prepared about an hour after the incident clearly show that complainant Abdul Ghaffar had only 4 injuries on his person, while P.W. Ghulam Muhammad had one injury on his person, but unfortunately the medical certificate shows that complainant A. Ghaffar has as many as 13 injuries. He has further contended that the injuries received by Ghulam Muhammad are ail caused with blunt weapon and only one injury being injury No. 7 has been found to be grievous which according to him is not mentioned, in the mashirnama. He has further contended that according to medical certificate injured A. Ghaffar had 3 incised injuries out of which injury No. 2 has been opined to be grievous. The medical certificate further shows that injury No. 11 which appears to have been caused with blunt weapon was also grievous in nature which according io the learned counsel was also not mentioned in the mashirnama of injuries. It was further contended that there was no previous enmity between the parties and it appears to be a case of sudden flare up over the dispute of water rotation. That it is not known as to who was responsible for causing grievous injuries to complainant. A. Ghaffar, and therefore, it was a case of further enquiry. In support of his contentions he has relied upon Shah Ali v. The State (1983 P Cr. L J 2016). Mr. S.Sarfraz Ahmad learned A.A.‑G. appearing for the State has conceded to the grant of bail to applicants Lalu and Ally alias Aaly, but he has opposed the grant of bail to applicant Dino because according to him, he appears to be responsible for causing injury No. 2 to the complainant which has been found to be grievous. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel and have gone through the FIR, order rejecting bail application, and the medical certificates produced by the learned counsel. As far as factual position as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant was concerned, the learned AA.‑G. for the State has not controverted the same for want of Police papers. However, mashirnamas of injuries have been placed on record by the learned counsel for the applicants, which clearly support his contention. On reading the FIR as a whole I am really at loss to find out as to who was responsible for causing injury No. 2 on the person of Abdul Ghaffar which has been opined to be grievous, and therefore, I do not agree with the learned A.A.‑G. that it was Dino applicant who had caused this injury. In spite of the fact that section 149, P.P.C. was applied to the present case, yet the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to grant bail to those who arc alleged to have been armed with lathis and had caused in jurica to the complainant and injured Ghulam Muhammad. In view of this position while relying upon 1984 SCMR 530, I am of the view that section 149 will not come in the way of the applicants. It was held in the above case by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that:‑ "Sections 497 and 498‑‑Penal Code, S. 302/149‑‑Bail in murder case‑ Co‑accused already granted bail on ground of having given hatchet blow causing simple injury to deceased‑‑Accused Petitioner stated to have given hatchet blow on arm of deceased which turned out to be simple, held entitled to bail." In the case of Shah Ali and another v. The State 1983 P Cr. L J 2016, it was observed that:‑ "Section 497‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Petitioners, accused of murderous assault responsible for causing simple injuries to a prosecution witness and nothing certain as to who caused grievous injury to victim of assault‑ Petitioner allowed bail, in circumstances." Looking to the factual as well as legal position I am of the considered view that although there is an allegation that three applicants were armed with hatchets and they caused hatchet injuries to the complainant and P.W. Ghulam Muhammad, but there is no assurance or guarantee as to who caused injury No. 2 to complainant Abdul Ghaffar which has been opined to be grievous. In view of the above discussion I am of the considered view that the case of the applicants, requires further inquiry within the meaning of section 497 (2), Cr.P.C., and therefore, direct that the applicants shall he released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 75,000 each and P.R. bond in the like amount) to the satisfaction of the trial Court. S:G:D/L‑12/K. Bail allowed.