' Sulman Munawar son of Munawar Sohail seeks his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 954 of 2003, dated 9-12-2003 registered at P.S. Peoples Colony, District Faisalabad for offences under sections 337- A(i), 337-F(i), 337-F(ii), 337-D, P.P.C.
2. The case of the complainant Athar Mehmood son of Faqeer Muhammad as unfolded in the F.I.R.
Was that his son Adeel Athar who was a student of Punjab Law College was taken by Sulman Munawar petitioner to 136-C Peoples Colony, Faisalabad where Adeel Athar asked the petitioner about his mobile telephone whereupon the petitioner along with two unknown companions inflicted `Churri' blows on the different parts of his body as a result of which his son fell down in an injured condition; Abid Hussain son of Muhammad Ibrahim and Khaliq Mehmood son of Muhammad Ibrahim residents of Chak No, 204-R. B who had come to the spot on a motorcycle rescued his son from the assailants and removed him to the Civil Hospital, Faisalabad; the injured was admitted to the Civil Hospital and his Medico-legal Report was obtained. According the instant F.I.R. Was recorded.
3. The petitioner was arrested on 2-3-2004 and is in custody ever since. The petitioner applied for his post-arrest bail which was rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate whereafter he kept on moving the learned trial Court as well as the learned Sessions Court for bail but without any success. His last bail application had been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his order, dated 16-6-2004. Hence this petition.
4. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Wahlah, the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of petitioner's plea for bail argued that the petitioner was a child within the meanings of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 and since he is in captivity for the last over four months and the offences are not punishable with death or life imprisonment, therefore, he is entitled to the concession of bail; that according to the investigation conducted by Deputy Superintendent of Police (Investigation) Circle, Peoples Colony, Faisalabad the injured had followed the petitioner to the house of latter's maternal uncle where he tried to molest his sister as a result of which the petitioner had acted under grave and sudden provocation resulting in the present occurrence; that there is no dispute about the venue of the occurrence which was the house of the maternal uncle of the petitioner who happens to be an Advocate and who had himself taken the injured to the hospital; that the injured remained in the hospital only for three days, whereafter, he had been discharged and that the report of the Doctor that one of the injuries suffered by him attracted section 337-D, P.P.C. Was not factually correct. He finally argued that on account of the opinion of D.S.P. (Investigation) that the incident had taken place on grave and sudden provocation, the case of the petitioner was one of further inquiry.
5. On the other hand Mr. Sabir Hussain Ch. The learned counsel for the complainant and Mr. Abdul Majid Chishti, the learned counsel for the State have opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.
' They argued that although the petitioner had been adjudged to be child within the meaning of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 yet he does not become entitled to the concession of bail automatically on this account; that the petitioner acted in a very callous and cruel manner inasmuch as the injured had suffered as many as 16 injuries on his person; that the Provision to section 10(7) of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 is attracted in the case and the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail. They argued that the plea that the injured had offered any provocation to the petitioner by making indecent advances towards his sister was not correct and that in fact the petitioner was aggrieved against the injured on account of an altercation which had taken place for the alleged theft of a mobile telephone set.
6. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also carefully perused the record brought by Mulammad Ayyub, S.-I. There is no denying the fact that a detailed investigation had been carried out by the D.S.P. Investigation, who had opined that the petitioner and the injured Adeel Athar were close friends and were on visiting terms and that on the day of occurrence Adeel Athar injured had gone to the house of Babar Hameed Advocate maternal uncle of the petitioner, where petitioner's sister Balusha was also present.
According to the D.S.P. The petitioner saw Adeel Athar making indecent overtures towards his sister, as a result of which he lost his cool, picked up a 'Churri' lying in the room and caused injuries to Adeel Athar. Babar Hameed Advocate the maternal uncle of the petitioner removed the injured to the hospital and also provided medicine to him and informed his parents about the incident. The D.S.P. Had finally opined that the incident had taken place on account of grave and sudden provocation as according to him any self-respecting person would erupt in fury by confronting such a situation. After considering the arguments at length I am of the view that the very number of injuries suffered by Adeel Athar show that he was attacked by a person full of vengeance and exhibits his venom and spitefulness. If the plea of the petitioner that he got enraged on seeing his sister and the injured indulging in an objectionable activity and the plea of the injured that incident had taken place on account of some altercation about the mobile phone are juxtaposed it would appear that the plea of the petitioner is prima facie more plausible. It is still to be seen if a petty altercation over a mobile phone could provoke the petitioner to the extent of causing multiple 'Churri' blows on the victim who admittedly was his close friend. These observations that I am making are tentative in nature and are meant neither to prejudge the case nor to pre-empt the functions of the learned trial Court. In the given background of the case the plea taken by the petitioner that he was provoked on account of the reasons mentioned hereinabove and in that condition losing self-control he inflicted multiple injuries on the victim cannot lightly be brushed aside, especially keeping in view the venue of the occurrence. Even otherwise it is an admitted position that the petitioner had been adjudged to be child within the meanings of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faisalabad vide his order, dated 7-6-2004. The said order remains unassailed and the petitioner's trial is also being conducted by a Juvenile Court. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I am inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner. In my opinion his case is pre- eminently one of further probe within the meanings of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. I am also of the view that the petitioner's case attracts the provisions of section 10(7)(c) of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000.
7. Resultantly this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
8. Before parting with this Order I would like to add that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and shall not in any manner affect the course of the trial. It may also be added that henceforth if any attempt is made by the petitioner to hinder the progress of the trial the prosecution/complainant will be at liberty to move for the cancellation of to the petitioner.