' Muhammad Ali, the petitioner through the instant petition has sought for cancellation of post- arrest bail extended to respondents Nos.1 to 3 by Malik Nazir Ahmad, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Chunian District Kasur vide his order dated 10-9-2003 in case F.I.R. No,234 dated 9-7-2003 under sections 337-A(2)/ 337-F(1)/37-L(2)/337-H2/440/148/149, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station, Kanganpur District Kasur. {{PAGE CRACK}}
2. Briefly the facts of the prosecution case as contained in the F.I.R. Are that on 9-7-2003 at about 11-00 a.m. Mukh Ahmad, Yar Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad Muhammad Aslam, Ashraf alia and Arshad while variously prosecution of the common o unlawful assembly formed damaged the crop of the grazing their cattle in the sai {{PAGE CRACK}} ' Muhammad Arif when stopped them from doing ,so they all attacked him and inflicted injury on his head, who fell down. Kamal Din when stepped forward to rescue him, he was also injured by them. Upon the receipt of information of such occurrence, his brothers Wali Muhammad and Jamal Din also reached there. They were also injured by them. In the meanwhile, Sardar made three fires. He and his father when came to rescue his brothers, the accused decamped from the scene.
3. These respondents were arrested in the case. They moved an application for post-arrest bail before the learned Illaqa Magistrate but without any success. They then made an application to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chunian for the same relief. The said learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chunian allowed them bail vide his afore-referred order. His observations in this regard were as follows:-- "During the investigation c accused Mukhtar Ahmad, Yar Muhammad along with Muhammad Ashraf present-petitioners have been declared innocent by the police vide Zimni No,14 dated 24-8- 2003 recorded by Naseer Ahmad, S.-I./S.H.O. The petitioners are behind the bar since 15-7-2003. A cross version on the statement of Mukhtar Ahmad co-accused was also got lodged against the complainant Jamal Din etc. No specific role has been ascribed in the F.I.R. To any of the accused/petitioners. The alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. No recovery has been effected from the petitioners.
' Rather it has been held during the investigation that none was armed with any fire arm weapon. In such like cases the grant of bail is a rule and refusal an exception. They are behind the bar and are no more required for further investigation or recovery. The bail cannot be withheld as punishment."
4. The petitioner feeling himself aggrieved of the said order has come to this Court with the instant petition seeking cancellation of their bail.
5. It has been contended on his behalf that in fact they had attacked the petitioner's side and injured them, as many as four persons and so were not entitled to the indulgence as shown by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, to them.
6. I have carefully considered his submissions and gone into the copies of the documents annexed to the petition.
7. As is obvious from the above position, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while extending them the relief of bail was influenced by many reasons, one of these was that their side has advanced counter version against the petitioner's side. Nothing adverse to the same has been shown by the side of the petitioner. This reason also was sufficient to take their (respondents Nos.1 to 3) case to be one of further inquiry in their guilt as it has repeatedly been held by this Court that in such situation, when there may be cross-version from the. Other side, the question that as to who was aggressor and who was aggressed upon needs determination to be made at trial. This definitely furnished a ground for bail to these respondents.
8. It may also be significant to mention here that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was also influenced by the fact that none of the offences with which they have been charged falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. The petitioner's side has shown nothing as against the same. It may also be relevant to mention here that in such like cases the grant of bail is a rule and refusal an exception. Even otherwise, to withhold bail in such like cases amounts to punishment in advance, which is not the policy of law.
9. There were other reasons as well, which have weighed with the learned lower Court in allowing them bail. All these are recognized in law.
10. Hence, I am of the considered view that no case for cancellation of bail to them has been made out.
11. The petition, therefore, having no merit is dismissed in limine.