Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of this bail petition, contends that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been involved in this case; that the petitioner is complainant in the case registered vide FIR No, 830/06 got registered by Iqbal (petitioner) on 27.10.2006 at 4 p.m. for the occurrence took place at 3 p.m. in which 15 persons were named in the FIR while six were shown as unknown; that in the said occurrence father of the petitioner was murdered and nine were injured; that in the last line of the FIR it was mentioned by the petitioner that on the hue and cry of the petitioner party, villagers had become provoked, they used dandas and sotas which resulted into the death of Ishaq and injuries to Rauf; that the police with mala fide intention declared all the accused of FIR as innocent except Ramzan who is still at large and has been declared as Proclaimed Offender while one Muhammad Aslam is behind the bar; that the accused party of the FIR is being backed by Sardar Asif Nakai, Minister for Housing Pakistan; that according to the cross- version which was lodged by Kausar Bibi, a widow of Ishaq, according to which petitioner was armed with a hatchet and have caused injury on the left side of head of Ishaq; that the case of the-petitioner is one of further inquiry falling under sub-section (2) to Section 497 Cr.P.C. and that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail by this Court.
2. On the other hand, Ch. Jamshed Hussain, Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that in fact that Minister was with the present petitioner party so it was the reason for delay in lodging the cross-version; that the petitioner was armed with a hatchet; that there is no mention in whole of the cross-version whether the said hatchet was used from front or reverse side but the injury in the MLR exists; that the petitioner is the main accused; that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C. coupled with the fact that it was the present petitioner party who was aggressor one; that the land in question was in possession of the complainant party of the cross-version and that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail from this Court.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, have given consideration to the submissions made at the bar and have also gone through the record.
4. Fact remains that the petitioner is complainant of the FIR lodged on his statement in which his father was murdered and nine persons received injuries. All the persons i,e, the deceased and inured persons received firearm injuries while injury attributed to the petitioner is on the head of one Ishaque and is with a blunt weapon while the petitioner was armed with a hatchet. I have gone through the statement of injured ASI Muhammad who was sent at the spot by DSP, his statement was recorded on 19.5.2007 as he was injured, according to his statement and as per Investigating Officer present in Court, the said ASI was present at the spot, one person was ploughing the tractor, all of a sudden a car came there and 5/6 persons who were armed with firearms, came out from the said car, started firing and caused the loss in question, Rauf is one of the accused persons mentioned in the FIR. The said ASI further stated in his statement that he received a blow on his head and thereafter became unconscious. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner is complainant in the main FIR lodged for the murder of his father and another and also qua receiving injuries by nine persons, Ishaque received five injuries and Injury No, 1 is attributed to the petitioner which is, with blunt weapon while the petitioner was armed with a hatchet, the cross- version was recorded after two months of the occurrence, police has declared all the accused of the FIR a innocent except Ramzan Proclaimed Offender while one accused, namely, Muhammad Aslam is behind the bar, I had dismissed Cr1. Misc. No, 4461-B/07 of one of the accused of the FIR, namely, Akram who was allowed interim bail by this Court, he did not file bail bonds which led to issuance of direction qua his arrest. Moreover, it has become a case of two versions and now it is the duty of the learned trial Court after recording of the evidence to reach at a conclusion as to which party is the aggressor. In the afore-referred circumstances, this Court is of the prima facie, view that the petitioner has made out a case falling under subsection (2) to Section 497 Cr.P.C. and is entitled to the concession of bail. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/-with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.