1999 PLP 462 (YLR)

Muhammad Zahid Hussain for Petitioners. Amin Ullah Malik for the State. A case under section 148/324/149 read with section 337‑F(iii), P.P.C.; is registered against the petitioners and others at Police Station, Miana Gondal, District Mandi Baha‑ud‑Din for an occurrence which took place on 11‑3‑1998 in which one Saeed Muhammad was injured. He suffered two firearm injuries, one injury on his fore‑arm whereas the other injury was on his back. Injury No. l was the entry wound and injury No.2 was exit wound. Likewise injury No.3 was the entry wound and injury No.4 an exit wound.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that injury No. l was attributed to Khizar Hayat with 30 bore pistol whereas injury No.3 and its exit wound injury No.4 was attributed to Manzoor Ahmad with .8 MM rifle.

3. Secondly it is contended that there was a cross‑version as according to the petitioners the other side i.e., the complainant side was aggressor as they had launched an attack and ‑made indiscriminate firing upon the accused party, while they were sitting at their Dera for which a counter‑version was also made before the police and a counter -challan has also been submitted against the complainant side under sections 324, 148 and 149, P.P.C., in which injured Saeed Muhammad was also one of the accused alongwith other 7 accused. It was, therefore, submitted that it is a case of further inquiry.

4. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application on the ground that both the accused have been found guilty during the investigation as they had caused injuries to the injured persons with their fire arm. Secondly it is contended that though there is a cross‑version, but none was injured from the accused side.

5. I have considered the foregoing submissions and find that there are two versions regarding the same occurrence. The injury attributed to the petitioner Khizar Hayat is on the non‑vital part of the body of the victim and as such he has a distinguishable case from the co‑petitioner Manzoor Ahmad. The petition to the extent of Khizar Hayat is, therefore, accepted and he is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.30,000 with one surety in the like amount to the, satisfaction of learned Trial Court. The case of other petitioner namely Manzoor Ahmad is different than Khizar Hayat. The injury attributed to him is on the vital part of the body of the victim as it was located on the posterior aspect of right side of the chest below the right shoulder joint. Petition to his extent is accordingly dismissed. N.H.Q./M‑1003/L Order accordingly.