' By means of this single order, I intend to dispose of two bail petitions i,e, Crl. Misc. No,1613/B of 2004 and Crl. Misc. No,1535/B of 2004, as both arise out of F.I.R. No,383 of 2003 dated 26-9-2003 under sections 302/337-A(i)/337-F(i)/34, P.P.C. And counter-version recorded during investigation.
2. Brief facts culminating into filing of these petitions are that one Muhammad Yousaf got lodged F.I.R. No,383 of 2003 with the allegation that on the fateful day and time he along with his father Abdul Sattar went to collect fodder. In the meanwhile, Tanvir and Shakil (petitioners) armed with daggers came on a tractor. Shakil gave dagger blow on the right thigh towards inner side of Abdul Sattar who fell down on the ground. Tanvir also gave a dagger blow on the back of Ramzan. His second blow hit the forehead of Ramzan. Muhammad Akbar another accused reached the spot while armed with Kassi and tried to give a blow but on seeing the witnesses, all the accused ran away.
3. During investigation, the accused party came up with counter-version that on 26-9-2003 Muhammad Yasin along with Shakil and Tanvir was returning to their home on tractor. In the way, accused persons including Muhammad Ramzan, Muhammad Younas (petitioners) and Abdul Sattar variously armed waylaid them. Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Younas gave dagger blows each hitting on the chest and right thigh of Shakil. Abdul Ghaffar gave Sota blow on the right side of nose of Shakil Ahmad. Abdul Sattar tried to assault on Shakil and he after snatching dagger from Younus, caused blow to Abdul Sattar in his self-defence. In the meanwhile, Shahid gave Sota blow on the head of Akbar.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shakil, petitioner in Crl. Misc. No, I613/B of 2004 argues that petitioner himself received four injuries, out of which three caused with sharp-edged weapon were on the vital part of the body, i,e, chest etc. And according to the doctor these injuries attract offence section 377-D, P.P.C. Which is punishable with ten years' imprisonment. It is further contended that Shakil was medically examined on the same day, but the complainant has suppressed his injuries. Learned counsel argues that in fact complainant party was aggressor; that cross-version was recorded after one and a half months only on the direction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the application moved by the petitioner, that injury attributed to the petitioner is on non-vital part; that he had not repeated the blow that nothing is to be recovered from him and that the trial has not yet commenced. Relies upon 1996 SCMR 1645 to contend that it is a case of two versions and which one is correct is to be determined at the trial, hence the petitioner may be enlarged on bail as his case is of further inquiry.
5. Learned counsel for the State as well as complainant opposes the bail petition on the ground that injuries on the person of Shakil petitioner were not properly probed by the doctor and he straightaway declared the said injuries falling under section 337-D, P.P.C. It is further contended that petitioner is named in the F.I.R. With specific role; therefore, he is not entitled to bail.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Younas (Crl. Misc.
No,1535/B of 2004) accused in the cross-version contends that they are innocent and cross- version has been recorded with a considerable delay just to benefit Shakil which even otherwise is an afterthought story. It is further contended that injuries attributed to the petitioners are simple in nature. Reliance is placed on 1978 SCM R 235.
7. This petition is opposed by the other side on the ground that both the petitioners gave dagger blows hitting Shakil on vital parts of his body, therefore, no case for bail is made out.
8. Heard. Record perused.
9. While considering the case of Shakil, it is noted that that he has been attributed blow on the person of Abdul Sattar deceased through dagger but on the other hand, he himself was seriously injured during the occurrence and was medically examined the same day immediately after the occurrence. According to the medical report at the time of his medical examination blood was oozing from the wounds. In the cross-version which was got recorded on the direction .Of the learned Additional Sessions Judge he had taken a stance that complainant party was aggressor and he acted in self-defence. He even did not repeat the blow. In these circumstances, the petitioner has succeeded in making out a case of further inquiry into his guilt. Hence Crl. Misc.
No,1613/B of 2004 is allowed and Shakil petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (two lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
10. Taking up the case of Muhammad Ramzan and Younas petitioners, they were attributed one injury each on Shakil injured. Abdul Ghaffar another accused as per the F.I.R. Had also caused injury to Shakil. Similarly, Abdul Sattar was also alleged to have tried to assault on Shakil. Due to involvement of so many persons the possibility of throwing a widen net on the part of the complainant party to implicate maximum members of the opposite party cannot be ruled out.
Even otherwise, both the sides received injuries at the hands of each other and they have come forward with their different versions. The guilt or otherwise of each party will be determined only at the trial after recording of evidence. In these circumstances, I am inclined to allow Crl. Misc.
No,1535/B of 2004 as well and the petitioners therein are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (two lac) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.