1997 PLP 3260 (MLD)

Mehr Muhammad Saleem for the State Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No.2 of 1996 dated 1‑1‑1996 under section 324/452/365/148/149/337‑A‑1I P.P.C. Police Station Saddar, Pakpattan Sharif.

2. The prosecution story briefly stated is that on 31‑12‑1995 at about 8 a.m. when the complainant was sitting alongwith two others was attacked by Mian Khan petitioner, Nazir Ahmad, Muhammad Munir and Muhammad Bashir armed with Sotas, Hakim Ali armed with hatchet, Mst. Shahida armed with Sota and two unknown persons also armed with Sotas. Mian Khan petitioner raised a Lalkara that Jan Muhammad be taught a lesson for disgracing Mst. Shahida Bibi his wife. The complainant was caught hold by Muhammad Munir, Muhammad Bashir and Hakim Ali and was taken towards the house of Mian Khan where he was belaboured by Hakim Ali accused with hatchet. Muhammad Munir also gave Sota blow which landed on his right shoulder. Muhammad Bashir gave him Sota blow which hit on his right eye whereas the Sota blow of Mian Khan petitioner landed on his left eye. Nazir also .gave him beating. Complainant's mother Mst. Sardaran Bibi was given a Sota blow on head by Mian Khan petitioner. She fell down and the two unknown persons gave her another Sota blow. Waris Ali a son of the complainant was given a Sota blow by Mst. Shahida Bibi and the complainant was locked up in the house. The motive alleged is that a day prior to the day of occurrence there was an altercation between Mst. Shahida Bibi wife of the petitioner and Mst. Hasnain Bibi sister of the complainant. Mian Khan, on that grudge, attacked the complainant party.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks bail on the ground that the petitioner was victim of attack and he received six injuries which have been suppressed; that as the police refused to register a case a private complaint was filed by Munir Ahmad co‑accused in the afore‑referred case and the complainant party have been summoned for 19‑2‑1997. He further adds that the injury attributed to the petitioner does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. and that all the co‑accused are on bail and the petitioner is in jail for the last eight months without any trial in sight.

4. Learned State counsel on the other hand has opposed the prayer for hail by submitting that the offences alleged fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and there is no justifiable reason to release the petitioner on bail at this stage.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record

6. It is not denied that in the private complaint filed by Munir Ahmad co- accused qua the same incident the complainant party has been summoned. The petitioner is in jail for the last eight months and not a single witness have been examined. All the co‑accused are on bail. In view of the above I am inclined to admit the petitioner to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of R.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate Section 30 concerned. H.B.T./M‑395/L Bail granted