2004 P Cr (PLP)

Muhammad Munir and Fazal Munir, the petitioners through the instant petition have sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.348 dated 16-8-2003 originally registered under sections 337-A(i)(ii)/337-F(i)/337-L(ii)/148/149, P.P.C. with Police Station Peoples Colony, Gujranwala. Later on, the police have added section 337-A(iii), P.P.C. in the same.

2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. is that on 15-8-2003 at about 9-30 a.m. they along with their co-accused while armed with Dandas and iron rods had beaten the complainant Mirza Amjad Hussain Baig and his son Mirza Majid Baig. The nasal bone of the complainant was fractured.

3. It has been contended on their behalf that they have falsely been roped in; that no specific injury either of the two injured persons is ascribed to any of them; that their four co-accused namely Muhammad Shahzad, Rana Muhammad Azeem, Faisal and Muhammad Mouaazam have been allowed post-arrest bail and their case is at par with them on merits; that those co-accused have been found innocent by the police and this shows that the story of the complainant is not correct and that the occurrence has taken place in some other way; and that they are behind the bars and previous non-convicts.

4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the petition on the ground that they are named in the F.I.R.; that they along with their co- accused while armed with Dandas and iron rods have caused injuries to the complainant and his son Mirza Majid Baig and the nasal bone of the former was fractured; that their four co-accused named above were found innocent during the investigation and that was the main reason with the learned trial Court in allowing them the bail and so their case is distinguishable from them; that the offence under section 337-A(iii) falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.; and that they are desperate persons and are likely to repeat the offence, if are released on bail.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.

6. The fact remains that no specific injury either of the complainant or his son is attributed to any of them. It is not clear that who has caused the injury on the nose of the complainant resulting into the fracture of the bone: Hence, it is yet to be seen that if the offence under section 337-A(iii) can be attracted against them or not, while the rest of the offences with which they are charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Their four co-accused named above have been extended bail though it was mainly on the reason that they were found innocent during the investigation but the role assigned to all of them in the F.I.R. is almost one and the same. Their case, on that count is not distinguishable from them. Anyway, they are behind the bars for the last more than two months and stated to be previous non-convicts, which has not been controverted. There has nothing been shown from the record to say that they in fact are the desperate persons.

7. In these circumstances, I find that the case for their enlargement on bail has been made out. The petition, therefore, is accepted and they are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50.000 (Rupees fifty thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Illaqa/Duty Magistrate/trial Court. H.B.T./M-2365/L Bail granted.