Having been involved in, case vide F.I.R. No, 1747 dated 10.12.2004 under Sections 324/148/149 PPC, registered at P.S. Charsadda, the accusedpetitioners applied for their release on bail in the. Court of learned Senior Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Charsadda but their application was dismissed vide order dated 17.3,2005. Thereafter, they moved the Court of learned ASST-I, Charsadda but their application met the same fate when it was rejected on 4.4.2005. Now they have moved this Court for their release on bail.
2. According to complaint, at the time of occurrence he came out from his house for the purpose of offering condolence/Fatiha Khwani on the death of mother of Razzaq and Raza Khan. In the street the instant three accused namely, Muhammad Ali, Suliman and Zabita Khan alongwith other co- accused, named in the FIR duly armed, were present. He accused having seen the complainant, have started firing at him as a results of which complainant sustained injuries.
3. Mr. Arshad Abdullah, Advocate the learned counsel representing the accused-petitioners argued that seven persons were charged for effecting simple injuries on the non-vital part of the body of the injured.
4. It was also argued that the occurrence allegedly took place at 8 a.m. whereas the injured was examined at 10.30-a.m. although the distance between the place of occurrence and the hospital is only two kilometers.
5. He further argued that Aman and Noman two accused have already been released on bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Charsadda, therefore, the petitioners be released on bail.
6. On the other hand Mr. Imtiazur Rehman, Advocate learned counsel representing the complainant argued that it were the accused-petitioners and their co-accused who attracted the house/hujra of the complainant and injured him. In fact the petitioners were aggressors and the injured was aggressed upon, therefore, they are not entitled for the grant of bail:
7. It was further argued that the case of the Accused-petitioners falls under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. and is punishable wirten years under Section 324 PPC and for the hurt caused also, therefore, they are not entitled for bail.
8. Mr. Muhammad Saeed Khan, learned Additional Advocate General representing the State argued that there was a cross case registered vide FIR No, 1746 which was not mentioned by the accused-petitioners. The case of the prosecution was duly supported by the medical report and the statements of the P.Ws recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. hence the accused petitioners are not entitled for the grant of bail.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
10. In this case seven person were charged for a single injury at Auterior aspect of right thigh mid way between hip and knee which was found simple. The occurrence took place at 8 a.m. but the injured was examined at 10.30 a.m., the distance between the place of occurrence and the hospital as only two kilometers. No reason whatsoever had been given for delay in examining the injured.
No specific role has been attributed to the accused-petitioners. The injury caused to the complainant is on non-vital part of the body. It is yet to be determined that the accused- petitioners shared common intention to kill the injured. The case of the accused-petitioners would, therefore, fall in the category of further inquiry.
11. I therefore, allow bail application in hand and direct that the "accused-petitioners be released on bail- provided they furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs, Two Lac each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate Charsadda who shall ensure that the sureties must be local, reliable and men of means.