' ARSHAD MAHMOOD, J.---Petitioner namely Liaquat Ali seeks his bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,674 of 2008, dated 4-11-2008 under sections 324, 337-A(i), 337-L(i), 148 and 149, P.P.C.
2. Case of the prosecution as unfolded in the F.I.R. Is that petitioner along with his co-accused while armed with sotas caused injuries to the complainant party. He was arrested in he case on 11-3- 2009.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contents that -the injuries attributed to petitioner do not fall within the prohibitory clause of subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C.; that injuries on the person of co-accused of the petitioner Ghulam Rasul on his head have been suppressed in the F.I.R. Which makes case against the petitioner one of further inquiry; that petitioner has been involved mala fidely and for ulterior motives on account of civil litigation and in this connection even Civil Revision No,457-D-2007 is sub judice before this Court. It was lastly argued on behalf of the petitioner that his case is at par with his co-accused Ghulam Rasul, Muhammad Malik and Tahir alias Khara whose bail before arrest was confirmed by this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No,708/B/2009 vide order, dated 7-4-2009.
4. On the other side learned ADPP assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this application. It is contended tha provisions of section 324, P.P.C. Apply with full force; that the weapon of offence i.e, sota has been recovered from the petitioner; that the petitioner is vicariously responsible for the commission of offence; that the alleged offences fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. It was lastly argued on behalf of the State that case of the petitioner is distinguishable from his co-accused as he is guilty of repeating injuries. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the complainant relied upon "Muhammad Rashid v. The State"
(1979 SCM R 92).
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned ADPP and the learned counsel for the complainant at length and gone through the record with their assistance.
6. No doubt petitioner has been named in the F.I.R. With active role of causing injuries to the complainant side but his case is that in fact complainant side was aggressor which prima facie does not appear to be without basis as MLR of Ghulam Rasul petitioner reveals that he had received four injuries on his head caused by sharp-edged weapon which have been suppressed by the prosecution in the F.I.R. Concealment of injuries caused to Ghulam Rasul petitioner is sufficient to demonstrate that complainant's version cannot be considered sacrosanct and at this stage cannot be safely relied upon. Besides civil litigation, inter se the parties, is undeniable which is discernible from the copy of order, dated 12-6-2007 in Civil Revision No, 457 of 2007. Conduct of Police in the matter of investigation of the case is not up to the mark as for recording of cross version the accused side had to approach this Court A through Writ Petition No,1731 of 2009. Injuries attributed to the petitioner are not covered under the prohibitory, clause of subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C., which are stately simple in nature covered under section 337-A(i) and 337-F(i), P.P.C. As far as application of section 324, P.P.C. Read with sections 148 and 149, P.P.C. Is concerned, it will be determined at the. Stage of trial as to which amongst both the sides was the aggressor. In the peculiar circumstances of the case emerging from the record, case against the petitioner is that of further inquiry within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Petitioner is behind the bars for the last about four months. Weapon of offence has already been recovered, therefore, he is no more required for the purpose of investigation. Resultantly this application is allowed, and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.