1988 P Cr (PLP)

Hafiz Ghulam Bari for the State. Ikhtiar Hussain and Talib Hussain petitioners have moved this petition for bail in a case registered against them and their co‑accused Iftikhar Hussain under section 307/34 of the P.P.C.

2. The prosecution version, in brief, is that on 8‑9‑1987 at 6‑30 a.m. Muhammad Ilyas PW demanded his cassette from Iftikhar Hussain alias Lota accused who started abusing him. Thereafter, Ikhtiar Hussain, Iftikhar Hussain and Arif Hussain came armed with a gun, Sota and carbine respectively. Ikhtiar Hussain petitioner fired his gun hitting the left knee of Muhammad Amin, brother‑in‑law of Muhammad Latif complainant. Then Talib Hussain fired his carbine twice hitting Muhammad Illyas and Mst. Nusrat. Iftikhar Hussain gave a Sota blow to Mst. Nazir Begum on the back of head. On the alarm of the complainant Malik Farzand, Meraj Din and others came to the spot and saw the occurrence.

3. All the three accused applied for bail before Magistrate Section 30, Lahore, who allowed bail to co‑accused Iftikhar, but refused the concession to the petitioners. The petitioners then moved the Sessions Court for bail, but the learned Addl. Sessions Judge rejected their bail application.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the injured P.Ws. were examined between 7‑55 a.m. and 8 a.m. and the medico legal reports bear the names of the police officials in the relevant columns, which fact unmistakably shows that the investigation had started much before the registration of the case, therefore, the F.I.R. is of no consequence. She also points out that Ikhtiar Hussain petitioner was examined at 9‑45 a.m. and his medico‑legal report also bear the name of a police official. She further submits that the injuries of Ikhtiar Hussain petitioner have been suppressed in the so‑called F.I.R. His arrest was shown on 11‑9‑1987 while his medico‑legal report reveals that he was with the police on the day of occurrence which clearly shows that initially the police did not consider it necessary to arrest him. It is submitted that the injuries on the person of Ikhtiar Hussain petitioner indicate that having been subjected to aggression, he exercised the right of his private defence. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail.

5. I have perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. It is true that the injured P.Ws. and Ikhtiar Hussain petitioner were medically examined, in the morning much before the registration of the case. The numbers and names of the constables are mentioned in the relevant columns of the medico‑legal reports, which fact, prima facie, lends support to the view that the investigation might have started prior to the registration of the case. However, in the circumstances of the present case, this fact or the absence of explanation of four simple blunt weapon injuries on the person of Ikhtiar Hussain petitioner would not make it a case of further inquiry. The prosecution version is supported by as many as five witnesses including three injured P.W. Muhammad Amin injured had a multiple circular wound with a big lacerated wound in the centre above the left knee with blackening around. The injury was grievous in nature and had been caused by fire‑arm. This injury has been attributed to Ikhtiar Hussain petitioner. Muhammad IIyas had multiple lacerated wound with a big wound in the centre with blackening around on back of left thigh. He was examined by Dr. Munawar Hayat, Neuro Physician and his opinion is as under:‑ "Patient has clinical evidence of injury to Lt. Sciatic Nerve giving rise to paralysis of Lt. Ankle movements, absent Lt. Ankle jerk and sensory loss in the distribution of Lt. Sciatic nerve, which is patchy and is not effecting uniformly demarcated areas. Rest of the nervous system examination is not contributory to the illness." Mst. Nusrat had two lacerated fire‑arm wounds. Injury No.l on the left upper eye lid was declared grievous. The injuries of Ilyas and Mst. Nusral have been attributed to Talib Hussain petitioner. The question as to who was the aggressor is a matter to be determined by the trial Court on the basis of evidence which is yet to be recorded. It may, however, be mentioned that normally the party having an aggressive design would not bring his women‑folks in the arena. In the circumstances, particularly in view of the nature of injuries attributed to the petitioners, I am not inclined to admit them to bail at this stage. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. S.A./I‑71/L Bail refused.