' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- Through the present petition under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. Dr. Khalid Aziz petitioner seeks cancellation of to respondent No,1 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura vide order dated 12-8-2009, in case F.I.R. No,211/2009 dated 11-5-2009, registered under sections 324, 337-C, 337-A(iii), 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), 337-F(ii), 427 and 34, P.P.C. At Police Station Saddar Farooqabad District Sheikhupura.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Mudassar respondent was armed with dagger with which he gave three blows on different parts of the body of Mst. Sonia his wife and four dagger blows on different parts of the body of Mst. Kishawar Bibi; that the respondent was arrested on 8-6- 2009 whereafter he moved an application for the grant of bail which was dismissed by the learned Illaqa Magistrate on 19-6-2009, whereafter he filed an application for the grant of bail which was dismissed Additional Sessions Judge on 24-6-2009, his second bail application was dismissed by the learned Illaqa Magistrate vide order dated 11-7-2009; that thereafter the respondent again applied for the grant of bail which was withdrawn from the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge on 20-7-2009 and for the third time the respondent applied for the grant of bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura who vide impugned order dated 12-8-2009 granted bail to the respondent on two grounds that the Investigating Officer of the rank of S.P. Has given his opinion that wife of respondent Mst. Sonia was lying on the cost of Hamzulf of accused who is also complainant of this case and the fact that sister of Sonia had tried to injure respondent which provoked the respondent and on the ground of juvenility of the respondent. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that according to Nikah Nama the respondent was 19 years of age at the time of marriage i,e, 3-8-2008, according to the I.D. Card his date of birth is 1-4-1987, as such, he was 21 1/2 years old at the time of incident; that the school leaving certificate produced by the respondent shows that the date of admission and date of discharge of the respondent from the school happen to be Sunday. It is also contended that the bail has been granted to the respondent when the doctor had declared the injuries on the persons of the victims/injured P.Ws. Falling under sections 337-A(iii), 337-C and 337-A(ii), P.P.C. Which fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And the learned Additional Sessions Judge while granting bail to the respondent has not even discussed the injuries; that the defence plea is afterthought and has been subsequently raised; that the face of Mst. Kishawar has been defaced due to the injuries. He relies on 2005 PCr.LJ 431.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent while supporting the impugned order contends that two other nominated accused were ascribed specific roles who were found innocent by the police and were granted bail; that the challan has been submitted in the trial Court where the respondent is appearing and has not misused the concession of bail; that the Investigating Officer had found that incident took place due to Ghairat and the findings of the S.P. Have not been challenged by the petitioner; that no recovery has to be effected for the respondent; that bail after arrest has been allowed to the respondent on new grounds due to the declaration of the incident as a result of sudden provocation; that school leaving certificate is available on record in order to show the Juvenility of the respondent and the bail cannot be withheld as punishment in view of the law laid down in PLD 1995 SC 34.
4. Learned D.P.-G. While supporting this application contends that he has no hesitation in stating that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not properly exercised his discretion rather misused it; that only one Investigating Officer conducted the investigation in this case and declared the respondent guilty.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. As the respondent was allegedly armed with dagger, had given repeated blows on vital parts of the body of Mst. Sonia who happened to be his wife and one of the injuries of Mst. Sonia falls under section 337-C, P.P.C. While the other injury attributed to the petitioner falls under section 337-A(ii) and the maximum punishment under both the injuries is ten years and even otherwise, it can be said that prima facie all the offences are made out against the respondent as the respondent made repeated blows with dagger. Earlier bail applications were dismissed and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has granted bail without considering the fact that the earlier applications moved by the respondent had been dismissed and no fresh ground was available.
6. As far as the ground taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not mention that the respondent was a minor is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly pointed out that according to the I.D. Card of the respondent he was born on 1-4-1987 and he was more than 21 1/2 years old at the time of incident. In the above circumstances, learned Additional Sessions Judge has erred in granting bail to the respondent, hence this application is accepted and the to the respondent is hereby cancelled.
7. Before parting with this order I may observe here that copy of this order and the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby the respondent has been granted bail shall be produced before the Member Inspection Team of this Court who shall call for the explanation from the learned Additional Sessions Judge and put up the same before this Court on administrative side. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.