' IQBAL HAMEEDUR REHMAN, J.--- Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in cross-version of case F.I.R.
No,516 of 2008, dated 13-11-2008 under sections 337-L(ii), F3, F4, Al, 452, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station.Garh, Faisalabad.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he caused injuries with a sharp-edged weapon to the complainant.
3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is the complainant of F.I.R. No,516 of 2008 and that this cross-version has been recorded by the complainant against the petitioner in case F.I.R. No,516 of 2008 dated 13-11-2008; that the injury attributed to the petitioner in the cross- version is that of KARPA. It is further contended that complainant is a Lambardar and the petitioner was demanding the lease amount from the complainant of the cross-version, who being an influential person instead of making any payment to the petitioner, he got registered the cross- version against the petitioner by using his influence. It is further stated that all the accused of the F.I.R. No,516 of 2008 have either been allowed bail by the Illaqa Magistrate or by the learned Sessions Judge but the bail petition of the petitioner had been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad on 6-2-2009, that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last about four months and is no more required by the police for further investigation.
4. Bail petition has been opposed by the Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant. It is stated by the learned counsel for the complainant that the police has prepared the cancellation report in F.I.R. No,516 of 2008 and in the cross-version of the complainant, challan has been submitted to the learned trial Court. Further stated that the occurrence took place at the Dera of the complainant; that the petitioner is specifically nominated in the F.I.R. And specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner, which is corroborated through the F.I.R. As well as M.L.R.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. According to the M.L.R. There are eight injuries and that they all are of blunt weapon and there are only swelling whereas KARPA is a sharp-edged tool and any injury inflicted with it would cause a severe cut, therefore, ocular account is in conflict with the medical evidence. Admittedly, it is a case of cross-version and all the accused of the complainant party have been granted bail, therefore, case of the petitioner becomes that of further inquiry as to which party is an aggressor and which party was aggressed upon. Reliance is placed on the cases of Ghulam Muhammad and 2 others v. The State 2002 PCr.LJ 1611, Allah Ditta and 2 others v. The State 2001 PCr.LJ 216 and Shoaib Mehmood Butt v. Iftikhar-ul-Haq and 3 others 1996 SCM R 1845. Moreover, the petitioner is behind the bars for the last about four months and no more required for further investigation.
7. In view of what has been discussed above, this bail petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing surety bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.