2011 PLP 953 (YLR)

SARDAR MUHAMMAD SHAMIM KHAN, J.

Falik Sher, petitioner seeks his pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him vide case F.I.R. No. 135 of 2010 dated 28-7-2010 for the offences under section 337-F(I)(V), 148 and 149 of P.P.C. registered at Police Station Dhanot, District Lodhran.

2. Precise allegation against the petitioner in F.I.R. is that on 11-7-2010 at about 9-00/10-00 a.m. he along with seven accused persons, nominated in the F.I.R., all armed with SOTAS, attacked on the complainant and due to injuries caused by the accused persons, the left fore arm of the complainant was fractured.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is extra ordinary delay of 17 days in lodging of F.I.R.; that there is general allegation against eight accused' persons including the petitioner that they caused fracture of left forearm of the complainant and this allegation is falsified by the Medico-Legal report of the complainant where the doctor did not observe any fracture of left forearm of the complainant; that in fact Mst. Asima Bibi daughter of the complainant, out of her own free will contracted, marriage with Abdul Khaliq, relative of the petitioner and this marriage was solemnized by her without the consent of her father, the complainant of this case; that complainant lodged a false case F.I.R. No.131 of 2010 regarding abduction of her daughter against Abdul Khaliq (her husband), petitioner and other relatives; that when her daughter Mst. Asima Bibi did not support the story of her abduction, the complainant has involved the petitioner and others in this case false case on the basis of mala fides. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted affidavit of Ghulam Mustafa eye-witness of this occurrence Ghulam Mustafa is also present in this Court, who states that he did not witness any such occurrence. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that due to the aforementioned reasons the petitioner is entitled to the grant of pre-arrest bail.

4. Learned D.P.-G. has contended that the petitioner is specifically nominated in the F.I.R. and there is specific allegation against him that he was armed with SOTA and he along with other 7 accused persons inflicted injuries on the person of the complainant causing fracture of his forearm; that the delay in lodging F.I.R. has been explained in the F.I.R., so; the petitioner is not entitled to the extra ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail.

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

6. The complainant lodged this F.I.R. with extraordinary delay of 17 days for which no plausible explanation has been provided by him. The allegation against the petitioner and 7 other accused persons, nominated in F.I.R., is that all the accused persons were armed with SOTAS and they attacked upon the complainant and all of them inflicted injuries on the person of the complainant due to which his left forearm was broken. Perusal of Medico-Legal Report of the complainant reveals that the doctor observed only three blunt weapon injuries on the person of the complainant. Injury Nos.1 and 3 were declared simple in nature whereas Injury No.2 was declared fracture of right fire-arm by the doctor, so, ocular account is in conflict with medical evidence. The daughter of the complainant Mst. Asima Bibi contracted marriage with Abdul Khaliq, relative of the petitioner, against the wish of her father, the complainant of this case. The case of abduction of Mst. Asima Bibi, the daughter of the complainant, was registered by the complainant on 18-7-2010. Mst. Asima Bibi did not support the prosecution story regarding her abduction and she categorically stated that she out of her own free will contracted marriage with Abdul Khaliq, so, possibility cannot be ruled out that the complainant lodged this false F.I.R. on the basis of mala fides, against the petitioner and other, after only ten days of aforementioned F.I.R. of abduction in order to teach then lesson as her daughter solemnized marriage with the relative of the petitioner, Ghulam Mustafa, P.W. is present before this Court who tendered his affidavit and has not supported the prosecution version of the instant F.I.R. The offence alleged against the petitioner does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of Cr.P.C. and it can not be ascertained at this stage that out of eight accused persons nominated in the F.I.R. who caused the fracture on the fire-arm of the complainant. This fact also makes the case of the petitioner that of further inquiry.

7. For what has been discussed above, petition in hand is accepted and ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted in favour of the petitioner vide order, dated 23-9-2010 is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./J-1/L Bail confirmed.