2002 PLP 143 (YLR)

Rashid Murtaza Qureshi for the Complainant Nazir Ahmad for the State. Petitioners alongwith seventeen others stand involved in crime report No. 54 dated 5-4-2001 under sections 324/452/337 A(i) 337-F(i) & (iv)/149 read with section 148, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Noorpur Thal, District Khushab at the instance of one Hayat Ali, a resident of village Chan, situate at a distance of 29 kilometers approximately from the police station. Occurrence of the alleged incident had taken place on 5-4-2001 at 2-00 p.m. and the matter was reported to the police on the same day at 3-45 p.m.

2. Muhammad Rarnzan son of Khan was armed with dagger, whereas other accused were armed with Sotas. The accused at the relevant time of occurrence composed themselves into an unlawful assembly while armed in the in prosecution of the common object of said unlawful assembly launched a brutal attack on Allah Ditta, Shahbaz, Safian Amanullah, Sanaullah and Munir Shahbaz suffered three injuries in all out of which one was incised wound. Allah Ditta, Safian Amanullah, Sanaullah and Munir suffered eight, ten, four, ten and one injuries respectively, by blunt weapons. Grand total of injuries comes to thirty

3. Petitioners were arrest by a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Khushab through his order d at 26-4-2001. They were taken into custody the police. Thereafter, they were declined post arrest bail by the same Court by virtue order dated 18-5-2001. Now they have approached this Court for the same relief.

4. Learned counsel for the petit forcefully argued that the provision section 324, P.P.C. were not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case; that Muhammad Ramzan son of Khan Muhammad Ramzan son of Muhammad Afzal and Mst. Amiran wife of Fazal Hussain ha, suffered three injuries each and one injury f the person of Mst. Amiran Bibi was grievous in character. He submits that occurrence the alleged incident involves two version Who is the aggressor or aggressed or which version is correct or otherwise are the pivot questions to be resolved by the trial Coin which would be possible only after recording of some material evidence in the case, an until such determination case of the petitioners is fully covered under subsection (2) of section 497 Cr.P.C being that of further inquiry.

5. On the contrary learned counsel for State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant after due consultation of vehemently argued that none from the accused side had suffered injuries during the occurrence and the counter-version agitated by the accused could not be established at all, during the process of investigation. It was next argued that the accused launched a pre planned and pre-concerted attack on the complainant side causing as many as 30 injuries on their person and further the accused had not instituted a private complaint against the complainant side. No counter version exists in the field for the present.

6. I have consciously heard and soberly considered respective arguments of both the sides. Excessive number of injuries on the complainant side in a clear cut terms exhibits aggression on the part of the accused. No private complaint was ever filed by them against the complainant side and the Investigating Agency has held that the accused had not suffered injuries in the occurrence and they had awfully failed to prove this particular aspect of the matter. In my view, the crime was committed out of elaborate planning, so I am not inclined to allow them bail accordingly, this petition is dismissed being devoid of force. H.B.T./M-955/L Bail Application dismissed.