'Through this petition Allah Ditta petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 120 registered at Police Station Seetpur, District Muzaffargarh on 28.06.2006 in respect of offences under Sections 337-A(ii)/324/34, PPC.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has straightaway been noticed by me that the parties to this case are closely related to each other and they also live in close proximity to each other. A perusal of the FIR shows that apparently at the time of the alleged occurrence it was the complainant party of this case which was aggrieved of some previous conduct of the accused party and according to the FIR it was the complainant party which had gone towards the accused party for lodging a protest immediately preceding the main occurrence. The FIR further shows that upon a verbal altercation between' the parties the situation on the ground had deteriorated and had taken an ugly turn resulting in the occurrence in issue in which three persons belonging to the complainant party and two persons belonging to the accused party had sustained injuries on different parts of their bodies. The two persons getting injured from the side of the accused party were the father and uncle of the present petitioner who had sustained various injuries on different parts of their bodies, including their heads. A cross- version of the same incident had been lodged by the accused party of this case and upon completion of the investigation the local police had found both the parties to be fully involved in aggression against each other and, resultantly, both the parties had been challaned. In these peculiar circumstances of tills case the question as to which party was in fact the aggressor is a question which surely requires further probe at this stage and such a factor is generally considered to be a valid ground for admitting an accused person to post-arrest bail. A reference in this regard may be made to the cases of Shoaib Mehmood Butt u. Iftikhar-ulHaq and 3 others [1996 SCM R 1845] and Ali Akbar Shah v. Banaras and others [1990 SCM R 1097]. It may be relevant to mention here that all A the other accused persons from both the sides have already been enlarged on bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alipur, District Muzaffargarh. The petitioner has already spent about five months in jail in eonnection with this case and no progress has so far been made in his trial after framing of a charge. It is trite that the concession of bail ought not to be withheld by way of premature punishment.
3. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.
50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.