2004 PLP 1575 (YLR)

S.D. Qureshi for the State. The petitioners seek bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.306 of 2002, registered on 6‑12‑2002 with the Police Station, Tanda, District, Gujrat under sections 324, 337‑A(i), (ii), 148 and 149, P.P.C. 2. The F.I.R. was lodged by Muhammad Inayat. According to the F.I.R., on 6‑12‑2002 around 11‑30 a.m., the complainant alongwith Muhammad Botta, etc. P.Ws. was proceeding from his house towards the Dera and when they reached near the Baithak of Mazhar, Sardar, Ghulam Abbas, Muhammad Riaz, Muhammad Boota, Mushtaq, Muhammad Waris and Muhammad Ashraf who were armed with sotas and hatchets came out from the shop of Muhammad Waris. Sardar and Ghulam accused raised Lalkara whereupon Ghulam Abbas armed with hatchet, Manzoor Hussain and Akbar armed with pistols .30 bore, Muhammad Akram armed with a Sota and Mushtaq armed with a gun .12 bore emerged from behind the Baithak of Mazhar, Manzoor Hussain held Botta, the brother of the complainant in his fold (Jappha). Ghulam Abbas gave a hatchet blow on the head of Boota on account of which he fell down. When Muhammad Tufail the maternal uncle of the complainant moved forward to rescue him. Muhammad Akbar hit butt of pistol .30 bore on the face of Muhammad Tufal and on account of which he fell down. Muhammad Ashraf gave a hatchet blow on the head of Muhammad Tufail. The other accused started causing injuries to Muhammad Tufail with their respective weapons. As the complainant raised alarm, Muhammad 'Khalid and Muhammad Hidayat P.Ws. reached there and who alongwith their persons got them rescued from the assailant. Muhammad Boota was referred to Lahore for treatment and thereafter the matter was reported to the police. 3. Arguments have been heard and record perused. 4. So far as Ghulam Abbas petitioner No.1 is concerned, he is alleged to have given a hatchet blow on the head of Boota. Keeping in view the nature of weapon of offence and the seat of injury, he does not seem to be entitled to the concession of bail as' section 324, P.P.C. is clearly attracted in such a situation. 5. So far as Muhammad Mushtaq petitioner No.2 is concerned, he was allegedly armed with the gun .12 bore at the time of occurrence but, there is no allegation against him of firing at any of the P.Ws. or causing injuries to anyone. 6. As regards Manzoor Hussain, petitioner No.3, he was allegedly armed with a pistol .30 bore at the time of occurrence, yet no pistol .30 bore appears to have been recovered from him during the course of investigation. He is also alleged to have held Boota P.W. in his fold, yet there is no allegation against him of causing any injury to Boota or to any other P.W. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that Manzoor Hussain, petitioner was himself injured during the course of occurrence and had received as many as four injuries on his person. 7. According to the contents of the F.I.R., Muhammad Akbar accused/ petitioner No.4 was armed with a pistol .30 bore and he had hit the butt of the pistol on the face of Muhammad Tufail. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that there was no injury on the face of Muhammad Tufail and that pistol .30 bore was also not recovered from the petitioners. 8. In view of what has been stated above, the case of petitioners Nos.1 to 3 i.e. Muhammad Akbar, Muhammad Mushtaq and Manzoor Hussain is clearly one of further inquiry and they are thus entitled to the concession of bail. Accordingly the bail application to the extent of petitioners Nos.1 to 3 is accepted and they are admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000, with one surety each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. 9. The bail application to the extent of Ghulam Abbas, petitioner No.4 is however, dismissed. H.B.T./M‑186/L Order accordingly.