Ijaz-ul-Hassan, J.--This petition, for leave to appeal, is directed against the order dated 19.5.2008, of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, dismissing Crl. Misc. No, 427-B of 2008, moved on behalf of the petitioner-Muhammad Shahzad Siddique, for grant of bail, in case FIR No, 59/2007 dated 25.2.2007 registered at Police Station Abbas Nagar district Bahawalpur in respect of offences under Sections 337-H(ii)/148/149/302/324/337-A(i)(ii), F(v)(vi) PPC.
2. The.facts of the case have been sufficiently mentioned in the memo of petition, as such, we do not consider it necessary to reproduce the same. Suffice is to state that petitioner is charged for firing a shot with repeater which hit Naveed Arshad on his right foot and one pellet of the said fiFe hit Aslam's small finger of his right hand.
3. Raja Ibrahim Satti, Advocate for the petitioner, in support of the bail petition, contended that High Court as well as Trial Court while declining bail to the petitioner have not appreciated the matter in depth; that the case of cross-version lodged by the petitioner party was not taken note of and that in given facts and circumstances of the case, High Court had no justifiable reason to decline the concession of bail to the petitioner.
4. 'Ch. Munir Sadiq, learned Deputy Prosecutor General for the State assisted by Mr. Saleem-ud-Din Aftab, Advocate for respondent Mst. Shahnaz, on the other hand, while controverting the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, supported the impugned order maintaining that bail has been refused to the petitioner for valid and cogent reasons which are not open to legitimate exception.
5. Submissions of learned counsel for the parties have been considered at length in the light of the material on record.
6. The petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest on 16.3.2007 and there is no likelihood of the completion of his trial in near future. According to the FIR, the petitioner does not have any attribution towards deceased Muhammad Saleem. The allegation against the petitioner is that he fired a shot with repeater which hit Naveed Arshad on his .right foot and one pellet of the said fire, hit Aslam's small finger of his right hand. Further the question as to which party was at fault, aggressor and which party is aggressed, is a legal ground for further inquiry. Other side is on bail granted by trial Court vide order dated 28.3.2007. It is settled principle of law that if one party is granted bail, other party is also entitled to the same relief in case of counter version. We may profitably quote the following observations made by this Court in Shoaib Mehmood Butt versus Iftikhar-ul-Haq and 3 others, (1996 SCM R 1845).
In case of counter-versions arising from the same incident, one given by complainant in FIR and the other given by the opposite party case law 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 enquiry for the reasons that the question as to which version is correct is to be decided by the trial Court which is supposed to record evidence and also appraise the same in order to come to a final conclusion in this regard. In cases of counter versions, normally, plea of private defence is taken giving rise to question as to which party is aggressor and which party is aggressed. In the case of Fazal Muhammad v. Ali Ahmad (1976 SCM R 391) in cross-cases the High Court granted bail to the accused on the ground that there was probability of counter version being true as some of the accused had received injuries including a grievous injury on the head of one accused. It was held by this Court that in such circumstances the High Court was right in granting bail and no interference was warranted. In the same context, reference can be made to the case of Mst. Shafiqan v. Hashim Ali and others (1972 SCM R 682)."
8. Pursuant to above, we are inclined to convert this petition into appeal and allow bail to the appellant subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs, 100000/- (one lac) with PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
9. We had, by short order dated 8.9.2008 granted bail to the appellant for reasons to be recorded later. Above are the detailed reasons of the same.