1995 PLP 650 (MLD)

(ii) that there is a delay of seven days in lodging the F.I.R. which appears to have been lodged after preliminary inquiry; (iii) that there is a background of enmity and the case has been registered on account of that malice; (iv) that no person from the locality has either been cited as witness or appeared in Court to support the prosecution case; (v) that as the injury caused is Jaifah therefore section 324, P.P.C. is not attracted and the offence does not fall in the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; (vi) that the petitioner is a respectable member of the Film Industry and there is no likelihood of his absconsion; (vii) that 'no recovery of weapon of offence was effected from the petitioner; (viii) that two of the co‑accused (Khalid and Mubashir) have already been granted bail.

5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand, has not seriously opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that it was basically a family dispute.

6. The complainant has appeared in Court to submit that he received a serious injury on his thigh. He further submits that on account of said injury he' has not been able to pursue his occupation for quite sometime.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

8. The report qua the injuries received by complainant and Mst. Huma Naseem indicate that complainant Abid Ali received following injuries:‑‑‑ (i) 1 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. lacerated wound with inverted margins on the anterior aspect of left thigh. (ii) 2.5 c.m. x 1.5 c.m. lacerated wound with inverted margins on posterior medical aspect of left thigh. The other injured namely Mst. Huma Naseem had a contused swelling 4 c.m. extending towards the back of the wrist. On Court query, the Investigating Officer appearing in Court submitted that the injury received by Huma Naseem was never declared as a fracture. The above‑cited description of the injuries received by the two injured shows that the case would prima facie remain within the ambit of section 337‑F(i) (iii) and would not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

9. With the advent of Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance (XII of 1993), section 307, P.P.C. has been substituted with section 324, P.P.C. Under the old law (307, P.P.C.) if hurt was caused to any person by such act, the offender was liable to imprisonment for life or such sentence as was provided in that section. Under the new Law i.e. P. section 324, P.P.C. if hurt is caused to any person by such act the person was liable to punishment provided for the actual hurt caused. I am fortified in my view by a judgment of this Court reported in PLD 1994 Lah. 344 and a Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1994 SCMR 2051 (Muhammad Afsar v. The State). In the Supreme Court judgment it was held:‑‑‑ "‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XII of 1860), S.337‑F(ii) as amended by Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Ordinance (XII of 1993)‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Gun injury received by the victim was on his ankle which was not on the vital part of the body besides it was found to be simple one and it was yet to be seen if the accused intended to kill the victim‑‑‑Injury, held, at the most fell under the provision of S.337‑F(ii), P.P.C. (as amended) and did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. in circumstances."

10. Bail in offences punishable with imprisonment for less than ten years is a rule. In a recent judgment reported in PLD 1995 SC 34 (Tariq Bashir v. The State), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:‑‑‑ "‑‑‑‑Ss.496 & 497‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Grant of bail in bailable offence is a right while in non‑bailable offences the grant of bail is not a right but concession/grace‑‑‑Grant of bail in offences punishable with imprisonment for less than ten years is a rule and refusal an exception‑‑‑Exceptional and extraordinary cases where bail is declined in cases of offences punishable with imprisonment of less than ten years enumerated."

11. For what has been discussed above, the petitioner is admitted to bail in case F.I.R. No.664/94 dated 11‑10‑1994 Police Station Nawan Kot, Lahore provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Duty Magistrate. N.H.Q./Q‑32/L Bail allowed.