This is a petition under section 497 (5), Cr. P. C. By Abdur Rashid petitioner for cancellation of the bail granted to Arshad respondent by an Additional Sessions Judge of Kasur on 30August, 1980.
2. According to the prosecution case, Abdur Rashid alias Arshad, respondent, and Khurshid and Jan Muhammad co-accused, made a murderous assault on Abdur Rehman's P. W. Not only causing him injuries, but also injuring Haider Ali deceased and Abdul Ghafoor P. W. And causing the death of the former. Abdur Rashid alias Arshad, respondent was armed with kassi, whilst Khurshid and Jan Muhammad, co-accused, were armed with knife and chhuri respectively. Haider Ali received deceased one stab wound in the chest which proved fatal which was attributed to Jan Muhammad, co-accused. Abdul Ghafoor P. W. Received one stab wound, which was found by the doctor to be both dangerous and grievous, which was attributed to Jan Muhammad, co-accused.
Abdul Rehman's P. W. Received two incised wounds, one lacerated wound and three swellings on various parts of the body, of which the lacerated wound on the lower jaw was declared to be grievous. According to the F. I. R., the two incised wounds on the left ear and back of left shoulder of Abdur Rehman's P. W. Were attributed to Khurshid, co-accused, whereas the grievous blunt weapon injury on his jaw was attributed to Abdur Rashid alias Arshad, respondent.
3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the peti--tioner, the complainant and the State. The learned counsel, for the petitioner contends that bail to Abdur Rashid alias Arshad, respondent, was wrongly granted as the learned Additional Sessions Judge wrongly came to the conclusion that the F. I. R. Spoke of six injuries to Abdur Rehman's P. W. Whereas the medico-legal report contained three injuries which analysis was wrong and that the injury below the left ear of Abdur Rehman's P. W. Was simple, which the learned Judge wrongly attributed to the respondent,th whereas actually the lacerated wound was grievous and was the real injury inflicted by the, respondent. It was submitted that these incorrect findings had led to the bail being wrongly allowed. Learned counsel also submitted that on 1October, 1980 at 5 p. m. Arshad, respondent, with his brothers, Ashraf and Mahmood, and one Suleman had threatened Shaheen Akhtar P. W. In respect of which a report was also made at the Police Station on 2nd October, 1980, vide Annexure 'C' attached to the petition. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent was only a lad of 15 years at the time of the commission of the offence and that he had been falsely roped in, as found by the D. S. P. In his second investigation. He also submitted that the allegations against his client regarding the misuse of the concession of bail, were false and trumped up to support this application.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to this case. Unfortunately the statement of facts regarding the injuries sustained by Abdur Rehman's P. W. As stated in the learned Additional Sessions Judge's order seems to be only a clerical error. Instead of stating that the F. I. R. Spoke of three injuries to Abdur Rehman's P. W. And the medico-legal report contained six injuries, the learned Judge has inadvertently mentioned that the F. I. R. Spoke of six injuries, whereas the report stated three injuries. Nothing material turns on this minor error. As regards the statement of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the injury below the left ear of Abdur Rehman's P. W, was simple, which he seems to impliedly connect with the respondent, it appears that he is mistaken here and that the grievous lacerated wound underneath the jaw is the real in inflicted by Arshad, respondent, on Abdur Rehman's P. W, This is just near the neck. The other two incised wounds on Abdur Rehman's P. W. Are by Khurshid, co-accused. As regards the contention that the respondent was misusing his concession of bail, the learned counsel for the respondent hail filed counter affidavits and a certificate from the House Surgeon, Services Hospital, Lahore, showing that Ashraf Ali was confined in the hospital from 31st August, 1980 to 10th September, 1980. Certificate of the House Surgeon clearly belies the allegation of the petitioner that Ashraf Ali threatened Shaheen Akhtar P. W. On 1September, 1980 at 5 p. m. In these circumstances, no reliance can be placed on the general allegations made by the petitioner that Arshad respondent was also misusing his concession of bail. The learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed bail to the respondent on a number of grounds i.e. That the respondent had only caused an injury below the left ear to Abdur Rahman P. W. Which was simple that respondent had not caused any injury to Haider Ali deceased; and that the D. S. P. Had opined in the investigation that the presence of Arshad, respondent, at the spot was doubtful. From the F. I. R. The statements of the witnesses and the medico-legal report relat--ing to the injuries on Abdul Rahman P. W. It prima facie appears that a murderous assault was made by the respondent and his companions on Abdul Rahman P. W. The respondent gave him a grievous injury on the jaw, which just missed the neck, uprooting 2/3 teeth. Khurshid co- accused gave knife injuries to him below the left ear and on the back of the left shoulder. When other persons ran up to rescue Abdur Rahman P. W., they were assaulted with sharp-edged weapons and Haider Ali died of the injury. The respondent and his companions are prima facie liable A for an offence under section 307/34, P. P. C. Even if the facts relating to that under section 302/34 are for the time being ignored. Taking all circum--stances into consideration, interference is called for in this case. The ipse dixit of the D. S. P. Cannot be accepted at this stage.
4. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is accepted, the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 30th August, 1980 is set aside and the bail granted to the respondent is cancelled. The respondent shall surrender himself to the trial Court. st st