' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.-Through this petition, the petitioners seek bail after arrest in the cross-version of case F.I.R 618/05, dated 18-12-2005, for offences under sections 337-F(vi)/337-F(v)/337- F(ii)/337- L(ii)/337-A(i)/148/149, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Jahanian, District Khanewal.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are alleged to have inflicted injuries on the persons of the complainant namely Muhammad Sadiq, his wife and his son Zubair Abid on 10-12- 2005, whereupon the afore-mentioned cross-version was recorded by the complainant Muhammad Sadiq.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the cross-version was recorded after the F.I.R.
Had been lodged by the accused side and that since it was a case of cross-version, the petitioners were entitled to the concession of bail; that both the parties were injured in the incident and the complainant had concealed the injuries in the counter-version which makes the case of the petitioners one of further inquiry; that twelve persons were nominated by the complainant in the counter-version case and seven out of twelve were declared innocent by the police which creates doubts as to the veracity of the prosecution case; that on the application of the petitioners, a Medical Board was constituted for re-examination of the injured but no one appeared before the Board despite repeated notices which also shows that the complainant . Side had something to conceal and that since the offences mentioned in the F.I.R. Were not hit by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. As such the petitioners were entitled to be released on bail.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the petitioners were named in the cross-version case and specific roles had been ascribed to them; that during the course of investigation, the petitioners were found to be fully involved in the case by the local police and subsequently by the D.S.P. (Investigation) who also concurred with the findings of the local police; that the medical evidence was in line with the ocular account as the injuries shown to have been inflicted on the persons of the injured were supported by the Medico-Legal Reports of the injured. Further contended that recovery of weapons of offence had been effected from the petitioners and that the challan having been submitted and charge having been framed, the trial was likely to conclude in a short while hence the petitioners were not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
6. Although the case in which the bail is being sought by the petitioners is a cross version of the afore-mentioned F,I.R. Nevertheless, the F.I.R. Was found by. The police to be false and a cancellation report in respect thereof was submitted. The medical evidence is in line with the ocular account in the cross-version inasmuch as ten injuries were found including fractures and dislocation of joint on the person of the complainant whereas his son Zubair Abid suffered twelve injuries and his wife suffered seven injuries at the hands of the petitioners. The prosecution case is further supported by the factum of recovery of the weapons of offence from the petitioners. Since the challan has been submitted and the charge has been framed, there is every likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future. Reliance is placed on the case Arif Din v. Amil Khan and another (2005 SCM R 1402).
7. A tentative assessm ent of the evidence on the record shows that there is ample evidence on the record to connect the petitioners with the commission of offences alleged against them.
Resultantly, the petition being without force is dismissed.