2004 PLP 2132 (YLR)

The petitioner Nasir is asking for his post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.261, .dated 12‑8‑2003 registered under sections 337‑L(2), 337‑C/34 and 337‑D, P.P.C. at Police Station, Bahawan, District Chiniot.

2. It is stated that the petitioner side and the complainant both live in the same locality. The injured P.W., Muhammad Akram allegedly got stab injuries on the portion of his abdomen at the hands of the petitioner Nasir. Whereas, the allegation against the co‑accused Murtaza and Shahbaz not the petitioners before this Court, is that they held Muhammad Akram injured P.W. in a clasp.

3. The facts as narrated are that on 6‑8‑2003, Muhammad Akram was proceeding to the house of Ghulam Muhammad his uncle for inquiring about his health. It was 5/6‑00 p.m. and he was returning home when the assailants afore mentioned who were already waiting for him, came out with another Zulfiqar not the petitioner before this Court who raised a Lalkara. The motive part of the story was that the injured P.W. Muhammad Akram had developed illicit relationship with the sister of the petitioner Nasir and this led to the occurrence.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that there is six day's delay in lodging of the F.I.R. and the inference drawn from this was that the complainant side itself was in a quandary whether to lodge the F.I.R. or not. Because there was an allegation of illicit relationship which involved their woman. That in fact tile story of the accused is that the injured P.W. Muhammad Akram was already in the house where that girl lived and whether they were both in an objectionable position or not this infuriated the accused side resulting in stab injuries to Muhammad Akram injured P.W. and this was the reason why realizing the error of the way of the injured P.W. they did not lodge the F.I.R. That Muhammad Akram the injured P.W. was not a person of good morals and he was the one who was the cause of the provocation.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the site‑plan, stated that the occurrence took place near the house of the petitioner and this also re‑enforced his contentions.

6. The petitioner is stated to be in the lock‑up for the last five months. The trial is not in sight and it is also to be seen whether the maximum sentence as prescribed under the provisions of section 337 D, P.P.C. would at all be applicable under the circumstances of this case. After hearing both sides, this Court admits the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./N‑48/L Bail granted.