1. ' Through the instant petition the petitioners have sought for their pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.19 dated 11-2-2004 registered under sections 337-A(iii)/337-L(ii)/34, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Haveli Koranga, District Khanewal.
2. ' Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends that the petitioners are innocent and they have committed no offence of any kind rather they have been involved with mala fide and ulterior motive in order to harass and pressurize them; that in fact complainant party was aggressor on 5-2-2004 at about 3-00 p.m. The complainant outraged the modesty of Mst. Kausar Mai paternal aunt of the petitioners and the complainant along with others armed with Sotas came at the spot on a tractor and motorcycle and raised Lalkara to teach a lesson to Muhammad Yasin petitioner for insulting the complainant. They caused injuries to the petitioner. According to the medico-legal report of tfie petitioner he received as many as four injuries, which were caused by sharp-edged and blunt weapon. Injury No.1 was declared as Shujjah Madiah whereas Injuries Nos.2 and 3 Ghair Jaif Damiah and Injury No.4 was kept under observation. Subsequently, F.I.R.
3. No.45 of 2004 was recorded at the instance of petitioner Muhammad Yasin against complainant Muhammad Afzal and others complainant of case F.I.R. No.19 of 2004 learned counsel further submits that MLC of the complainant was fabricated and same had been obtained with the collusion of medical officer in order to create cross version and damage the case of the petitioner.
4. Further submits that complainant. Muhammad Afzal was servant of Zulfiqar who was an influential person and closely associated with the S.H.O. Police Station Haveli Koranga. Further submits that there was an arbitration between the parties (Halaf Safai) wherein one Mehr Rustam Ali had stated on oath that no such incident had taken place. This Halaf Nama was also part of record. Further submits that there was unexplained 6 days delay in lodging the F.I.R. That had not been explained which casts grave doubt in the prosecution version and false involvement of the petitioner as well as manoeuvring of false reports cannot be ruled out.
5. ' Conversely, learned counsel for the State has strongly opposed the grant of bail.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. Admittedly it's a case of cross version. Both the parties had lodged the criminal case against each other. Both the complainants in both the said cases were injured. Perusal of the medico-legal report of Muhammad Afzal complainant in the instant case shows two injuries one was painful swelling on the nose and the other was pain on the back. Injury No.2 was declared as 337-L(ii) and of simple nature caused by blunt weapon whereas Injury No.1 was kept under observation for X-ray report by the surgeon. I have perused the entire record produced by the police officer but there is no such report available on the file except that there was opinion of the same doctor who had conducted the medico-legal report that Injury No.1 had been declared Ghair Jaifa Hashma. The Investigating Officer was repeatedly asked.To produce the report of the Expert but he has failed to produce the same which casts grave doubt with regard to the opinion of the doctor who has opined on the basis of the same medico-legal report that Injury No.1 was Ghair Jaifa Hashma so his opinion is not free from doubt. I have also perused Halaf Nama Safai wherein both the complainants in both of F.I.Rs. Had agreed on Mehr Rustam Ali who is responsible person of the locality that if he made a statement on oath that no such incident had taken place, in that case Muhammad Afzal complainant and others would be considered as accused person in cross version and if he failed to make statement on Holy Quran then Muhammad Yasin complainant would be considered to be involved in this case. Accordingly said Mehr Rustam Ali after thorough inquiry and satisfying himself had become ready to give oath as required. The same fact had been recorded and thumb- marked and witnessed by two respectables of the locality. Keeping in view Halaf Nama and the quality of medico-legal report and the cross-version recorded the possibility cannot be ruled out that case F.I.R. No.19 had been registered in order to counter the other case. Therefore, false involvement of the petitioner as well as the mala fide on the part of the prosecution cannot be ruled out in this case. Hence in this view of the matter, I am of the view that case for pre-arrest bail or confirmation of pre-arrest bail is made out. Accordingly, I allow this petition and confirm the bail already granted vide order dated 28-5-2004 subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (one lac) each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
7. Pre-arrest .