1988 P Cr (PLP)

Zafar Yasin for the State. Muhammad Khalid, Zahid Mahmood and their father Muhammad Hanif petitioners have moved this petition for bail in a case registered against them under section 302/34, P.P.C.

2. The prosecution version is that on 27-9-1987 at 7 p.m. Muhammad Khalid petitioner, armed with a hatchet, and Zahid Mahmood and Muhammad Hanif, armed with Sota, confronted Amir Ali complainant and his sons Arif Ali and Muhammad Anwar when they were going towards their tubewell. Muhammad Khalid abused Arif Ali and shouted that he would be taught a lesson for abusing him, and simultaneously gave him a hatchet blow on the head. Muhammad Anwar stepped forward upon which aforesaid Muhammad Khalid injured him as well with his hatchet and Zahid gave him Sota blows. In the meantime Muhammad Hanif gave Sota blows to Arif Ali. A quarrel between aforementioned Arif Ali on one side and Muhammad Khalid and Zahid Mahmood on the other is stated to be the motive for the offence. On the night between 28/29-9-1987 Arif Ali succumbed to his injuries in the General Hospital, Lahore, whereafter his father Amir Ali reported the occurrence at P.S. Sadar Gojra on 29-9-1987 at 9-45 a. m.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there is a delay of two days in lodging the F.I.R. and three persons on the accused side also suffered severe injuries, which have been suppressed by the complainant party. It is submitted that Amir Ali complainant in the F.I.R. and Sharif and Taj Din in their statements under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. made no mention of the injuries of the petitioners, therefore, the F.I.R. version is highly doubtful and the case of the petitioners needs further inquiry. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the delay has been explained in the F.I.R. itself and the injuries on Zahid Mahmood and Muhammad Hanif petitioners appear to be self-suffered.

4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar in the light of the material available on the record. Arif Ali injured was examined by the Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Gojra, on 27-9-1987 at 10-30 p.m. He had an incised wound on left side of scalp, a lacerated wound on forehead, a swelling on the back of left hand and three abrasion,. Anwar P.W. had an incised wound and three blunt weapon injuries. Two injuries were simple and two were kept under observation. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that as per his instructions the other two injuries were also declared simple. On accused side Zahid Mahmood petitioner had a lacerated wound 5 c.m. x 1 c.m. x bone deep on the scalp and another lacerated wound on the top of head in addition to a swelling on back of forearm. The lacerated wounds were kept under observation and later on declared simple. Muhammad Hanif petitioner had two incised wounds, one on the back of scalp and the other on the outer surface of the left ear. There was a swelling on the back of his left forearm. Injury No.1 on the scalp was kept under observation and later on declared simple. Both of them were examined on 27-9-1987 at 10/ 10-20 p.m. The duration of injuries was within six hours. Injuries on their person indicate that it was not a one-sided affair. Prima facie, it appears that there was a fight in which both the parties suffered injuries at the hands of each other. In the medico-legal report Zahid Mahmood's age has been mentioned as sixteen years. He is not alleged to have caused any injury to the deceased. According to the post-mortem report injury No.1 therein was the same as injury No.1 in the medico-legal report. This injury proved fatal and it has been specifically attributed to Muhammad Khalid petitioner. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case I feel inclined to the view that a case for the enlargement of Zahid Mahmood and Muhammad Hanif petitioners is made out. I, therefore, admit them to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A . C . , Gojra. Muhammad Khalid petitioner is alleged to have caused fatal injury. The prayer for bail regarding him is declined. S.A./hI-683/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.