' The brief facts of the case, as per F.I.R. Are that Muhammad Maqbool Ahmad son of Muhammad Ismail (complainant) stated before police on 10-8-2002 that he was resident of Chak No,138, Murad and that Muhammad Asif son of Talib Hussain used to play taperecorder with loud voice and he warned him many times. He further stated that on that date (10-8-2002) at about 7-00 a.m. He and his brother Mehmood Ahmad again admonished Muhammad Asif but he abused the complainant and asked his brother, Zubair and father, Talib Hussain to bring hatchets and sticks to teach them a lesson. He mentioned that Zubair brought two hatchets whereas Talib Hussain while armed with stick also reached the spot. Asif Hussain gave hatchet blow on the head of complainant and he fell down. Asif Hussain gave hatchet blow on the head of his brother, Mehmood 'Ahmad and he too fell down and became unconscious Muhammad Zubair gave hatchet blow on the left arm of complainant. Asif Hussain gave hatchet blow on the head of complainant. Muhammad Arham reached the spot to rescue them but Asif Hussain gave hatchet blow on his head whereas Talib Hussain gave Sota blow on his right shoulder. On hearing their alarm Muhammad Shafique and Shahid Farooq reached the spot and rescued them from accused. On his statement case was registered under section 324/34, P.P.C. But later on Mehmood Ahmad died and section 302, P.P.C.
Was, accordingly added. The petitioner was arrested on 30-8-2002. Hence this bail application.
2. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Further submits that according to F.I.R. Petitioner caused injury on the left arm of complainant with a hatchet but according to M.L.R. The said injury is with a blunt weapon, therefore, the case of petitioner is that of further inquiry. He Contended that complainant party has also been challaned in the cross-case and that Talib Hussain co-accused was allowed bail on 4-2-2003, therefore, petitioner too deserves concession of bail. He further contended that petitioner is in judicial lock-up since 30-8-2002 but no evidence has been recorded so far.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant as well as State have opposed this bail application on the grounds that petitioner is named in the F.I.R., that according to F.I.R. He. Brought two hatchets from his house, that specific role has been attributed to him, that petitioner cannot get benefit if there is conflict between F.I.R. And MLR and that now case is fixed for prosecution evidence.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. As mentioned above, the allegation against the petitioner is that he caused injury on the left arm of Muhammad Maqbool, complainant with a hatchet but as per MLR said injury is with a blunt weapon. However, no injury to deceased has been attributed to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the complainant admits that complainant party has also been challaned in the cross-case and that Muhammad Maqbool complainant and Muhammad Arham P.W. Have been challaned under sections 324/337-A(ii)/337-F(vi))/337-L(ii)134, P.P.C. Admittedly Talib Hussain, co-accused was allowed bail on 4-2-2003. As per F.I.R. The allegation against him is that he caused injury on the person of Arham, P.W. With a Sota. The record shows that at the time of disposal of bail application of Talib Hussain, co-accused learned counsel for the complainant (Ch. Noor Hassan, Advocate) too submitted that he had no objection if he was released on bail. The petitioner is in judicial lock-up since 30-8-2002 but no evidence has been recorded so far. In these circumstances without going into merit of the case I find it a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner. As such this application is accepted and petitioner is allowed bail (in case F.I.R. No,173 of 2002 under sections 337-A(ii), 337- F(vi), 337-D, 337-L, 302, 324, 34, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Daharanwala District Bahawalnagar) subject to furnishing security in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. However, learned trial Court is directed to decide this case within three months after receipt of this order. It is made clear that if petitioner misused the concession of bail or became absent during trial, the learned trial Court would be competent to cancel his bail.