' SYED SAJJAD HUSSAIN SHAH, J.--- Petitioner Imtiaz through the instant petition has sought post- arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,22 of 2006 dated 11-2-2006 under sections 337-A(ii)/337-F(i)/ 337- L(i)/337-L(ii)/148/149, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Mason, District Jhang.
2. Briefly the allegation against the petitioner is that he while armed with Sota along with other co- accused in furtherance of their common intention inflicted Sota blow to the injured Ahmad Khan on the right side of his forehead.
3. It is contended that three co-accused of the petitioner having same role were granted bail by the Judicial Magistrate, Jhang; the offences are bailable except sections 337-A(ii) and 337-L(i), P.P.C. And the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Further contends that the complainant with the help of Medical Officer of D.H.Q. Manoeuvred the reports against which the petitioner moved application to the Health Department on which an inquiry was directed; that there are cross-cases in between the parties and a wider net has been thrown to involve most of the family members of the petitioner. Reliance in this regard has been placed on Muhammad Haroon alias Haroon Rehman v. The State 2004 SCM R 89.
4. Learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant opposed the instant petition.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Injury No,1 is attributed to the petitioner. According to the M.L.R. It is a lacerated wound 6 c.m. x 1 c.m. Bone exposed on right side of head which was kept under observation and advised X-Ray. No report of Radiologist is available on the record and in absence of report/opinion of the Radiologist, the injury presumed to be simple. The offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. The allegation against the petitioner is that he inflicted Sota blow on the head of the complainant. At the most it attracts section 337-L(ii), P.P.C. Which too does not fall within the prohibitory clause. There is no allegation that the petitioner repeated the blow. Even observing the rule of consistency, the other co-accused those were attributed similar role, have been granted bail by the lower Court. No exceptional circumstance has been brought to the notice of this Court to withhold the bail.
7. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail, subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lac) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.