ORDER S. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J. ~ Abdul Razzaq Nadeem and Saeed Ahmad petitioners seek bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No. 754/2008, dated 6.10.2008 for offences under Sections I 48/337-A(i)/337- A(ii)/337-F(i)/337-L(ii)/337- F(vi)/323/149, P.P.C, registered at Police Station City Rai Wind, Lahore.
2. The ground urged for bail was that no specific role was attributed to any of the accused; that the allegation against them was of general beating; that the co-accused charged with-similar role, were granted bail by this very Court on 17.2.2009 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1260- B/2009; that although the petitioners were allegedly armed with hatchet but there were only two incised wounds which were simple in nature and on the rule of consistency, the present petitioners were also entitled to bail.
3. Bail was opposed by. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General, with the assistance by the learned counsel for the complainant urging that earlier the facts were not correctly placed before this Court, that photographic picture of seats of injuries could not be expected from the complainant or the PWs when they were surprised by all the accused while armed with hatchet and Sotas; that the offence under Section 324, P.P.C, although added later, fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.; that the co-accused after having been released from jail, had attacked the complainant party whereupon F.I.R. No. 170/2009 was got registered on 2.3.2009 under Section 427/148/149/337-H(2), P.P.C, at Police Station City Rai Wind, Lahore and that in any case, the petitioners were not ' entitled to the grant of bail.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced by both the parties and perused the record.
5. There was only one injury warranting offence under Section 337-F(vi), P.P.C, which could not be specifically attributed to any of the accused on the present showings. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that F.I.R. No. 170/09 referred to above was invented by the complainant party only to create a ground for forestalling the bail being sought by the petitioners, may not be altogether without force, In our society, it is not unusual to make complaints against the accused released on bail so as to show that he is misusing the concession. The investigation of F.I.R. No. 170/09 is still at third stage, In any case, the present petitioners were in jail and could not be comfortably indicted for the offence as contained in F.I.R. No. 170/09. The complainant party has already moved cancellation of bail of those accused who were granted bail earlier by this Court.
The said matter will be considered on its own merits. As far as the present petitioners are concerned, they are in jail for the last more than five months. The trial is not in sight. Rule of consistency would apply on all fours. The question of vicarious liability of the petitioner will also be determined by the Trial Court. Consequently, I admit the petitioners to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with one surety or in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.