Above titled revision petitions have been directed against the orders dated 10.10.2007, 20-11-2007 and 02-01-2008 passed by District and Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Poonch Rawalakot.
2. Necessary facts for disposal of the revision petitions are that a case under Sections 324, 337, 341, 506, 147, 148, 149, A.P.0 and 14/20, E.H.A was registered against the petitioners and non-petitioners at Police Station, Rawalakot on the complaint of Muhammad Aslam Khan. It was reported that complainant alongwith his brother-in-law Muhammad Anwar was coming home. At about 4.45, p.m. they reached at the place known as Jumman-n-naka and noticed that Wagon No, 5158-RIR' and a motor cycle standing there. 5/6 accused persons came out of the wagon and started abusing. Muhammad Ameen non-petitioner inflicted injury at his leg and hand with dagger while Muhammad Yameen non-petitioner who was armed with pistol raised lalkara. In the meantime Muhammad Ilyas, Muhammad Shahzad, Muhammad Shahbaz, Muhammad Azad, Shiraz and Abdul Khaliq also came over there and started beating the complainant and his companion with sticks. It was further alleged that they snatched away Rs,350,000/- and mobile phone. The occurrence was stated to be witnessed by Shakeel, Sajid and Tahir Rashim. Motive behind the occurrence was an old enmity between the parties.
3. After registration of the case, Muhammad Yameen applied for pre-arrest bail which was allowed and confirmed by District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Rawalakot vide its order dated 20-11-2007.
Muhammad Ameen accused non-petitioner was arrested by the Police, however, he was allowed after arrest bail by Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Rawalakot through its order dated 02-01-2008 while Muhammad Ilyas, Muhammad Shahbaz, Muhammad Shahzad and Muhammad Azad were refused bail by District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Rawalakot through the order dated 10-10-2007. The correctness and legality of the above mentioned orders have been called in question by the aggrieved parties though the above titled revision petitions.
4. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners argued that an enmity was prevailing between the parties due to which the complainant concocted a story to rope the accused petitioners and non- petitioners in a false case. Allegation regarding snatching money gets no support from the record while medico-legal reports pertaining to the complainant and another were also doubtful. The role of the accused persons particularly that of the accused petitioners was not specific by the complainant or prosecution witnesses. No independent corroborative material in support of the version given by the complainant was brought on record. True facts were suppressed and an exaggerated account was given by the prosecution which was not confidence inspiring. The trial Court rightly allowed bail to Muhammad Yameen and Muhammad Ameen but failed to appreciate that the case of the accused petitioners was also that of further inquiry, therefore, by accepting the revision petitions, they may also be released on bail and revision petitions filed by the complainant may be dismissed.
5. On the other hand, it was argued that the occurrence took place during broad day light. The accused persons were identified by the complainant and P.W Muhammad Anwar during the occurrence. They were nominated in promptly lodged F.I.R. The version given by the prosecution was supported by recoveries of weapons of offence, stolen money and wagon used for commission of offence. Prima facie all of them were connected with the offence. The trial Court rightly refused bail to the accused petitioners but failed to appreciate that a strong case also existed against the accused non-petitioners and they were not entitled to the concession of bail, therefore, by accepting the revision petitions bail granted to Muhammad Yameen and Muhammad Ameen may be cancelled and the revision petition filed by the accused petitioner Muhammad Ilyas and others may also be dismissed.
6. Since all the revision petitions arise out of the same F.I.R, therefore, these shall be disposed off through this common order.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
8. It may be mentioned here that while deciding bail application a Court has to consider the record such as F.I.R, statements of prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C, medical report, recoveries etc, and defence plea, if any and if there appears that case of an accused person requires further probe, the bail shall be granted otherwise same shall be refused.
9. In the present case, the complainant alleged the accused-petitioners and non-petitioners for beating with sticks and causing dagger injuries at his person. It was further alleged that the accused persons snatched Rs, 3,00,000/- and further alleged that they snatched Rs, 50,000/- and a mobile phone. A careful consideration of the record shows that abrasions were found at the left hand wrist of P.W Muhammad Anwar. The injury sheet pertaining to Muhammad Aslam was prepared by the Police and he was sent to medical officer for examination on 06-09-2007 and report was obtained on 11-02-2008. It is interesting to note here that the report shows amputation of tip of left index finger and fracture of left ulna but surprisingly no injury was noticed by the Investigating Officer at left hand and arm of Muhammad Aslam at the time he prepared injury sheet which at this stage creates a serious doubt on truthfulness of the prosecution story besides claim of the complainant regarding knife injury was doubtful. Pistol was not used by Muhammad Yameen during the occurrence and allegations of snatching Rs,3,50,000/- and Nokia mobile from the complainant were not supported by the evidence on record and that also suggests further probe into the guilt of accused petitioners and the non-petitioners.
10. In light of the fact listed above, I am of the opinion that Muhammad Yameen and Muhammad Ameen were rightly allowed bail by the Court below, however, the impugned order dated 10-10- 2007 was without any lawful justification, thus the same is set aside and Muhammad Ilyas, Muhammad Shahzad, Muhammad Shahbaz and C Muhammad Azad accused petitioners are also granted bail. They shall be released from custody on furnishing bail bonds in sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- each and personal bonds in the like amount to the satisfaction of any Magistrate 1st Class, Rawalakot, consequently the revision petitions filed by the complainant are hereby dismissed.