1990 PLP 138 (MLD)

2. According to the F.I.R., the accused party suspected the complainant to have named them as the persons who had stolen the wheat belonging to one Haji Allah Ditta Lodhra. On the day of occurrence, it is alleged that the complainant was cutting grass when the accused party assaulted him and that the petitioner caused him injury on his head with his hatchet, and that the other co‑accused caused injuries to the complainant his son, Muhammad Munir and his brother, Noor Ahmed. Only one injury, stated above, was attributed to the present petitioner. The bail applications of the petitioner were rejected by the trial Court on 9‑8‑1989 and by the learned Sessions Judge on 10‑9‑1989. Hence the present bail petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends for bail on the ground that the injury attributed to the petitioner is simple in nature and that it has not been declared to be dangerous to life and that the petitioner had not repeated the blow. It is further contended that the co‑accused, Muhammad Akram, who is alleged to have caused the grievous injuries has already been bailed out and that, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to be dealt with in the same manner on the principle of propriety and consistency. It was further contended that as the injury caused by the petitioner was simple and not dangerous to life and as he had not repeated the blow, therefore, he is not liable to be sentenced to ten years or more, and that, therefore, his case is not hit by the prohibitory clause. It was further contended that the challan has already been submitted and that the petitioner is no longer required by the police and that his further detention will serve no useful purpose and that he has been in Jail for more than two and a half months.

4. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied upon:‑ (i) Muhammad Alam and 2 others v. The State (1986 M L D 1558): Wherein bail was granted to the accused charged under section 307, P.P.C. as the injury caused on the head was not dangerous to life. (ii) Muhammad Mubeen and another v. The State 1987 M L D 1568: wherein the accused charged under section 307, P.P.C. was bailed out as the injury caused by him was on the vital part but was only simple in nature. (iii) Ch. Muhammad Anwar Samma etc. v. The State 1976 S C M R 168: Wherein it was held that as the medical report did not disclose any injury either such as was likely to result in death in the usual course. of nature or such as could be so imminently dangerous as to be likely to caused death, the accused charged under section 307, P.P.C. was admitted to bail.

5. The learned counsel for the State opposes the bail petition and supports the case of the prosecution.

6. As the injury caused by the petitioner has not been declared to be dangerous to life and, in fact, is simple in nature and as he did not repeat the blow which renders the case to be one of further inquiry in respect of the offence under section 307, P.P.C. and as the co‑accused, who is said to have caused the grievous injury, has been enlarged on bail, therefore, placing reliance on the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is hereby admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C./Duty Magistrate, Bahawalpur. N.H.Q./H‑143/L Bail granted