' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.---Through this petition, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case F.I.R. No,177 of 2007, dated 29-4-2007 for offences under sections 33'-A(ii), 337F(i), 337L(2), 354/34, P.P.C.
Registered at Police Station Batapur, Lahore.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and others while armed are alleged to have caused injury to the complainant whereupon the aforementioned F.I.R. Was lodged.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there was a delay of ten hours in lodging of the F.I.R. Which had not been explained that the allegation against the petitioner was of causing Chhurri blow to the complainant which fell under section 337A(ii), P.P.C. And since die said offence was punishable with five years' imprisonment, therefore, the same was not hit by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., that in fact, the brother of petitioner, namely, Tariq had been examined by the Medical Officer earlier than the injured of the F.I.R. But on account of the mala fide of the police the F.I.R. Was not lodged and cross-version was lodged at the instance of the petitioner and others on the order of the S.S.P. (Operation) as the local police had refused to register the same; that co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Hanif and Tariq, his father and brother have already been allowed bail by the learned lower Court; that a medical board was constituted to reexamine the complainant which in its report opined that the possibility of injury No,l (attributed to the petitioner) being self- suffered could not be ruled out and, therefore, the case of the prosecution was false that one of the witnesses namely, Muhammad Hussain had made a contradictory statement before the police regarding the time of occurrence whereas the other witness, namely, Muhammad Arif had not appeared before the police at all; that the injury on the person of Tariq, coaccused had been concealed by the complainant and that since the case was of two versions, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to the grant of pre-arrest bail.
4. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the petition.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
6. Admittedly, the brother of the petitioner namely, Tariq was examined half hour prior to the medical examination of the complainant but for some reason the F.I.R. Was not lodged at his instance. The cross-version from the petitioner's side was declined to be recorded by the S.H.O. And consequently, on the order of the S.S.P. (Operation), the same was registered against the complainant of the F.I.R. And others. A medical board was constituted to re-examine the complainant which in its report dated 26-7-2006 opined that the injury allegedly inflicted by the petitioher on the head of the complainant could be self-suffered. Thus, serious doubt has been created about the veracity of the prosecution case and the benefit of any doubt even at bail stage must go to the accused. The offence with which the petitioner is charged entails a maximum sentence of five years which is not hit by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The occurrence allegedly took place at 5-00 a.m. Whereas the F.I.R. Was lodged at about 3-00 p.m.
Therefore, there is a delay of ten hours in lodging of the F.I.R. Which has not been explained although the police station is at a distance of about 9 k.m. From the place of the occurrence.
Further, on account of some previous dispute between the parties, false implication of the petitioner in the case cannot be ruled out. One of the eyewitnesses mentioned in the F.I.R., namely, Muhammad Hussain has stated the time bf occurrence as 6-30 a.m. In his statement before the police whereas the other eyewitness, namely, Muhammad Arif has not got his statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. Before the police, meaning thereby he has not supported the prosecution case. The injury caused to the brother of the petitioner, namely, Tariq has been concealed by the complainant in the F.I.R. And since it is a case of two versions, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the grant of pre-arrest bail.
7. Consequently, this petition is accepted and the ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 17-7-2007 is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.