1990 P Cr (PLP)

Ch. Arshad Mahmood for Petitioner. Javed Shaukat assisted by Mian Nisar Ahmad for the State. This is an application for grant of bail to Karamat petitioner in a case under section 307/34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Saddar Kasur, vide F.I.R. No. 355/87, dated 18-9-1987.

2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner and 3 others in furtherance of their common intention launched murderous assault on Muhammad Ishaq and Abdul Ghaffar on 18-9-19$7 and caused injuries to them.

3. As far the petitioner it has been alleged that he was armed with gun and had caused fire wound on the leg of Abdul Ghaffar P.W, which was declared grievous.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail granted to the petitioner on 24-1-1988 by the learned trial Court was cancelled by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 17-7-1988 without legal and factual justification; that the grounds on which the bail was allowed to the petitioner on 24-1-1988 was still available to the petitioner when the bail was cancelled by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 17-7-1988; that there are cross-cases and two versions of the occurrence and it is yet to be decided as to who was the aggressor. Learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has seriously opposed this application on the ground that the counter-case was lodged after more than 4 months of the occurrence; that the petitioner had caused grievous injury with fire-arm; that the alleged offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and by now challan has been (filed in the trial Court.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that the petitioner was arrested on 19-9-1987 and he was released on bail on 24-1-1988 on the ground of non-submission of challan; that when the learned Additional Sessions Judge cancelled the bail, the challan had not been filed in the trial Court by that time; that a cross-case relating to the same incident was registered on 8-2-1988 against the complainant party; that the accused in the cross-case are on bail and that there being two versions of the same occurrence, it is yet to be decided, who was the aggressor. For what has been said above, without making expression of opinion lest it may prejudice the merits of the case, I feel that a case for grant of bail to the petitioner has been made out. He is, therefore, allowed bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Kasur. H.B.T./K-226/L Bail granted.