1. ' Applicants Rajo and Sajjan have sought bail in a case registered at Police Station Tando Adam for offences punishable under sections 324 and 504/34, P.P.C.
2. ' The incident is said to have taken place on 23-2-2003 at 3-00 a.m. (mid-night). As regards the background of the occurrence, it is stated in the F.I.R. That Rajo had teased the horse tethered at Dargah to which Abdul Aziz injured had raised objection. There was an exchange of harsh words between them and after issuing threats applicant Rajo had gone away. At 3-00 a.m. (mid night) the applicants appeared there and Rajo inflicted sharp sided hatchet blow on head of Abdul Aziz while Sajjan caused Lathi blow on his forehead. Abdul Aziz went unconscious. One Sharif had witnessed the incident, he informed the brother of Abdul Aziz namely Sohno who lodged F.I.R. On third day of the occurrence i,e, on 23-2-2003.
3. ' I have heard Mr. Noor Nabi G. Memon, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Muhammad Azim Panwhar learned State Counsel, the latter has opposed the bail application.
4. ' Mr. Noor Nabi G. Memon, learned counsel for the applicant relied on a non-cog report lodged at the same police station on the day of occurrence wherein complainant Sohno stated that some unknown person caused Lathi blow to his brother and then comparing this version with that given in the F.I.R. Lodged after three days he contended that the story has been modified, consequently, the delay in lodging of the F.I.R. As well as modification in the story make out a case of further enquiry. He further relied on the version of Abdul Aziz the injured whose statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Was recorded after 12 days wherein he disclosed that hatchet blow was first inflicted upon him by Rajo whereafter Sajjan snatched the hatchet from Rajo and inflicted a blow with its handle side and then he went unconscious. He further relied on Syed Abdul Baqi Shah v. The State 1997 SCM R 32, Haji Maa Din and another v. The State and another 1998 SCM R 1528 and submitted that the conflict between ocular and medical evidence be resolved in favor of the accused. He also relied on Muhammad Naseem v. The State 2002 PCr.LJ 438 and argued that the names of applicants do not find mention in the non-cog report, therefore, they are entitled to bail.
5. ' Mr. Muhammad Azim Panwhar, learned counsel for the State submitted that Sohno is not an eye- witness of the occurrence. Significance in the circumstances is to be assigned to the version of injured himself who has stated that Rajo had inflicted hatchet blow and then with the same hatchet Sajjan inflicted blow with handle side. He submitted that all the injuries are on vital part of the body.
6. ' I have considered all these contentions carefully. The case is at the earliest stage. There is unanimous version that Rajo had the grudge and prima facie he had a motive to commit the offence under section 324, P.P.C. In which he used the hatchet at odd hours of night after having come prepared. These allegations cannot be discarded at this stage unless evidence comes on record to the contrary. As far role of Sajjan is concerned he was not present when first part of the incident had taken place and even at the crucial time, after snatching the hatchet, as per allegations, he intentionally avoided to use its sharp side. At least from this act it can be inferred that his case requires further enquiry.
7. ' The authorities cited by the learned counsel do not apply in the case of Rajo. The bail plea on behalf of Rajo in view of the above discussion is rejected. He may repeat the same after some evidence comes on record. However, applicant Sajjan is granted bail in the sum of ID Rs,50,000 with one solvent surety and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.