2005 PLP 1308 (MLD)

Arrested in case F.I.R. No.297 of 2003, registered with Police Station Saddar, Ahmadpur East, District Bahawalpur on 26-11-2003 under sections 380/452, P.P.C. at the instance of one Muhammad Ramzan (sections 324, 337-A(ii) and 411, P.P.C. were added later on), after arrest bail has been sought by the petitioner, through the instant bail petition. .

2. Abridged facts, as narrated in the F.I.R. by the informant, are that on 26-11-2003, he was present in his house. His brother Muhammad Jamil had also come to see him. At about 4-00 p.m., Munir Ahmad son of Muhammad Siddique, armed with a hatchet, entered his house and threatened him to teach a lesson for having quarreled with him on the turn of water. The informant rushed to his residential room. Munir Ahmed also followed him and gave a hatchet blow on the head of the informant. Second blow hit the informant on his cheek and hand. Munir Ahmad again struck the hatchet from its blunt side on the leg of the informant. Upon the hue and cry of the informant, his brother Muhammad Jamil came to rescue him. Meanwhile, Ghulam Murtaza son of Munir Ahmad, equipped with a hatchet, also came for help of his father and gave a blow with his hatchet hitting on the forehead head of Muhammad Jamil Ghulam Murtaza repeated his blow, which was stopped by Muhammad Jamil with his hand, due to which his hand was seriously injured. Upon hearing the noise, Khalil Ahmad and Muhammad Idrees were attracted to the spot. On seeing them, accused person made their escape good while taking away with them licensed .12 bore gun, bearing No.Sr.9427 of informant, which was lying on a cot.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted bail after arrest by the learned Magistrate section 30, Ahmadpur East on 30-1-2004 but upon an application of the informant before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, bail of the petitioner was cancelled on 7-5-2004, without any cogent reason. According to the learned counsel both the parties are near relatives and in fact the informant was the aggressor and had entered into the house of the accused petitioner, for which Munir Ahmad accused-petitioner had also filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate, in which counter-version has been entered. The prosecution has suppressed the injuries of Munir Ahmad, although Munir Ahmad was having injuries at the hands of the informant and was got examined by the police also. It has further been stated that the petitioner had applied for re-examination of the informant and his brother but despite having been summoned thrice by the Medical Board, they had not appeared for re-examination. Therefore, the Medico-legal Report already submitted in favour of informant was not believable. The learned counsel has further argued that the offences, with which the petitioner stands charged, do not fall within the purview of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the grant of bail and has stated that the F.I.R. was lodged with promptitude and the petitioner was named in the F.I.R. and specific role has been attributed to him, therefore, he is not entitled for the grant of bail.

5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel and have perused the record.

6. It has been admitted that the complaint has been filed by the present accused, in which cross-version/counter-version has been entered. Another material fact, which entitles the petitioner for the grant of bail is that he had also received injuries in the alleged occurrence, which were got examined by the police itself and these injuries were suppressed by the informant in his report. The offences, of which the petitioner is accused, are not so, as to fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Moreover, once bail granted has to be cancelled on some reasonable grounds like misuse of concession of bail or threatening of prosecution witnesses or prolongation of the trial, etc. As no such allegation from the prosecution has been levelled, therefore, I accept this application and grant the petitioner bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Fifty thousand rupees) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./M-1053/L Bail granted.