By this single order Crl. Misc. No, 1747/B/2007 and Crl. Misc. No, 1.933/B/2007 arising out of the same F.I.R. are being decided.
2. In Crl. Misc. No, 1747/B/2007 the petitioners Mushtaq Ahmad, Muhammad Akram, Allah Ditta, Iqbal and Monis seek pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 327/2006 dated 6.9.2006 registered under Sections 337-A(ii), 337-F(3), 148, 149 P.P.C. at Police Station Alpa District Multan, whereas the petitioner Riaz Hussain in Crl. Misc. No, 1933 of 2007 seeks pre-arrest bail in cross-version case recorded F.I.R. No, 327/2006 dated 6.9.2006 registered under Sections 337-A(ii), 337- F(3), 148, 149 P.P.C. at Police Station Alpa District Multan.
3. Briefly stated Ijaz Hussain son of Ghulam Rasool lodged F.I.R. No 327/2006 dated 6.2.2006 registered under Sections 337-A,(ii), 337-F(3), 148, 149 P.P.C. at Police Station Alpa District Multan, against the petitioners Mushtaq Ahmad and others alleging therein that on 1.9.2006 at about 2.45 p.m. his brother namely Riaz Hussain was irrigating his land, meanwhile the petitioners came there while armed with hatchets and raised Lalkara. It is further alleged that Mushtaq Ahmad gave a Soti blow which hit on the head of the complainant's brother and blood started oozing out of the injury.
He fell down on which other Petitioners No, 2 to 4 gave Soti as well as fist and kicks blows to him. On his hue and cry PWs as well as the other people attracted who rescued the complainant's brother.
The motive as narrated hi the F.I.R. is that there was a dispute regarding irrigation of the land between the parties, hence this case. The petitioners applied for grant of pre-arrest bail before the lamed Addl. Sessions Judge, Multan who dismissed the same vide order dated 25.7.2007.
4. The petitioner Riaz Hussain in Crl. Misc. No, 1933/B/2007 also seeks pre-arrest bail in cross-version case registered in F.I.R. No, 327/2006, on the statement of the accused persons Mushtaq Ahmad and others alleging therein that the petitioner/accused inflicted sota blow on . the head of Mushtaq Ahmad/accused who became injured and he was medically examined and the medico legal certificate was issued in his name. The petitioner Riaz Hussain alongwith his co-accused Ijaz Hussain of cross-version submitted application for pre-arrest bail before the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge, Multan. During the investigation the co-accused Ijaz Hussain was found innocent and the bail to his- extent was dismissed as withdrawn whereas the bail application of the petitioner Riaz Hussain was dismissed vide order dated 25.7.2007.
5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners Mushtaq Ahmad and others that the occurrence in the instant case had taken place on 1.9.2006 while the F.I.R. has been lodged' on 6.9.2006 with deliberations and unexplained delay of five days; that the mala fide of the complainant is that the instant case has been registered after obtaining the false and frivolous M.L.C., that in fact the complainant party was the aggressor who attacked the petitioners and as a result of the same Petitioner No, 1 Mushtaq Ahmad suffered injuries, who was medically examined and the M.L.C. was also issued but the complainant in order to save his skin got recorded the instant case which is based on concocted story. It is further submitted that the cross-version case of the petitioners has been recorded against Ijaz Hussain the complainant in the instant case and Riaz Hussain the alleged injured person in the instant case. Thereafter, Riaz Hussain was found guilty and his bail was dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Muitan vide order dated 25.7.2007.. Further stated that the petitioners and the complainant party are closely related to each other and the case has been registered in view of the family feud. Further that Muhammad Akram, Allah Ditta petitioners are teachers and they have been involved in this case with ulterior motives clue to enmity; that it is a case of two versions and it is yet to be decided, which party was the aggressor, as such, it is a case of further inquiry. The investigation has been completed and the petitioners are no more required by the police.
6. On the other hand, the bail has been opposed by the learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned D.P.G. It is stated that the sharp edged weapon has been used on the vital part of the body; that the petitioners have not been able to show any mala fide on the part of the complainant or the police.
7. The learned counsel for the, petitioner Riaz Hussain in Crl. Misc. No, 1933/B/2007 has stated that the instant cross-version is absolutely fake, fictitious and concocted story; that there is nothing on the record in the shape of convincing evidence to connect the petitioner/accused with the commission of alleged offence narrated in the cross-version; that the medico legal certificate got prepared and procured by the complainant of cross-version is a forged and fabricated one and the injuries shown to have been sustained by the injured Mushta.q Ahmad are result of self- inflicted and self-suffered; that there is conflict between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence because according to the medico legal certificate the injury upon the injured Mushtaq Ahmad was caused by a sharp edged weapon which makes the case of the petitioner one of further inquiring. On the other hand, the learned D.P.G. opposed the grant of bail to the accused Riaz Hussain on the ground that he has been found guilty during the investigation and incised wound has been attributed to him, which is on the vital part of the body.
8. Arguments heard, record perused.
9. Admittedly it is a case of cross-version. Both the parties are seeking pre-arrest bail in their respective cases. The case appeared to be a brawl as both the parties scuffled and injured each other. In the case of counter-version arising from the same incident, one given by the 'complainant in F.I.R. and the other given by the opposite, party, it is almost settled that such cases are covered for grant of bail on the ground of further inquiry as contemplated under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. In such cases normally, bail is granted on the ground of further inquiry for the reason that the question as to which version is correct is to be decided by the same in order to come to a final conclusion in this regard. It is yet to the trial Court which is supposed to record evidence and also appraise be determined as to which party is aggressor and which party is aggressed against.
Reliance in this regard can be placed to the case of Shoaib Mehmood Butt us. Ifitkhar-ul-Haq and 3 others (1996 SCM R 1845).
10.For the foregoing reasons, these petitions are allowed and 'the ad-interim bail already granted to the petitioners in the F.I.R. as well as in the cross-version case vide order dated 2.8.2007 and 3.9.2007 is hereby confirmed subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of its. 50,000/.- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.