' MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, J.--- The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 9-10-2002, whereby his Criminal Miscellaneous No,6634/B of 2002 seeking post-arrest bail, was dismissed.
2. Brief facts are that case F.I.R. No,287 of 2000 dated 19-6-2000 under sections 302/324/337-A(i), 337-H(ii), 337-L(i)/148/ 149, P.P.C. Was registered against the petitioner and eleven others at Police Station Thikriwala, District Faisalabad on the complaint of Jamshed Ali to the effect that the petitioner and 11 others armed with deadly weapons, in furtherance of their common object, attacked on the complainant party and killed Shakir Ali. Ad interim pre-arrest bail was allowed to the petitioner on 16-8-2000 but due to his non-appearance, his application for pre-arrest bail was dismissed on 5-10-2000 and it was directed that sureties be proceeded against under section 514, Cr.P.C. The petitioner filed another pre-arrest bail application and was allowed interim bail but this application was also dismissed in default on 23-7-2001. After his arrest on 10-9-2001, he applied for post-arrest bail which was not allowed by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 7-12-2001. He then moved an application for the said purpose before the Lahore High Court, Lahore and a learned Judge in Chambers allowed him bail vide his order dated 19-2-2002. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant filed a petition for leave to appeal for cancellation of his bail before this Court which was converted into appeal and allowed on 21-5-2002.
3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another bail application, which was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad on 4-9-2002. He then filed Criminal Miscellaneous No,6634/B of 2002 which was also dismissed by a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Lahore on 9- 10-2002. He then filed the instant petition for leave to appeal before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently pressed into service the statement of Muhammad Boota complainant of the cross-version, who appeared as P. W.1 in the cross-case and is co- accused in the present case. Muhammad Boota stated that the injuries attributed to the petitioner, were caused by him, as such, according to the learned counsel, the petitioner's role became doubtful, hence, he is entitled to the concession of bail. Conversely, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the petitioner's bail was cancelled by this Court and there being no fresh ground for bail, fresh bail application could not be filed. He urged that the evidence recorded in one case cannot be read in another case and each case of counter-version has to be decided on its own evidence recorded in that case.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, we are of the considered view that fresh bail application can be moved at a subsequent stage on the grounds which were not available at the time of filing of earlier application and order passed on the subsequent bail application would not amount to review of the earlier order on the bail application as section 369, Cr.P.C. Does not apply to such orders. The record shows that it is a case of counter-version and the accused party in the present case also sustained injuries. Muhammad Boota, an injured witness in cross-case, stated that about 25 persons of the complainant party armed with deadly weapons trespassed into his Haveli and started beating him, Rehan Bibi his niece Razia Bibi his sister, Ghulam Muhammad his father and Nathu Bibi his mother.
' According to him, Jamshed inflicted hatchet blow on his head, Mahboob Alam fired a shot with .12 bore gun which hit the arm of Mst. Razia Bibi. Sarwar caused butt blows on Ghulam Muhammad and Shakir caused butt blows to Rehana Bibi. He picked up a piece of wood and inflicted two blows on the head of Shakir deceased. We would refrain to comment on the foresaid statement of Muhammad Boota lest it may prejudice the case of either side, moreover it is the exclusive duty of the trial Court to appraise the evidence of the respective cases while deciding the same. However, on tentative assessm ent of the material on record for the purpose of grant or refusal of bail in murder case of cross-version, if some doubt is created about the injuries caused to the deceased as to who was responsible for the same, which of course, has to be determined by the trial Court on minute appreciation of entire evidence, the provisions of section 497, Cr.P.C. Would be attracted and benefit of such doubt would be extended to the. Accused even at bail stage.
6. Consequently, we convert this petition into appeal, allow the same and admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs,5,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.