MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J. - Muhammad Younas petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No. 142/2009, dated 23.7.2009 offence under Sections 324, 337-D and 34, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Mitha Tiwana, District Khushab. Precisely allegation against the petitioner is that he alongwith his co-accused in furtherance of their common intention launched a murderous assault upon Muhammad Sajjad brother the complainant and injured him.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of this petition, contends that as a matter of fact it was the complainant side who was aggressoi in this case and the Police after registration of the cross-version of the accused side has mala fidley cancelled the same; that after cancellation of the cross-version of the petitioner's side, maternal grandfather of the petitioner filed a private complaint under Section 324, P.P.C. Etc. Against the complainant side; that the complainant alongwith others has been summoned in the complaint case to face the trial and as such it is a case of two versions; that the petitioner was medically examined on 24.7.2009 and three injuries were found on his person and he was taken to the hospital by the Police, that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last eight months therefore, he is entitled the concession of bail.
3. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, vehemently opposes this bail applicatiop oh the grounds that the petitioner is accused of causing injury to the.
Injured; that the injured remained in the hospital for about two months; that the offence alleged against the petitioner is within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Petitioner was also injured in this incident'. He sustained three injuries and he was medically examined on 24.7.2010 in the same hospital where the victim was examined. The petitioner was taken in the hospital for medical examination by the Police. Though the Police has cancelled the cross-version of the petitioner's'side but the fact remains that a complaint was filed by maternal grandfather of the petitioner and vide order dated 24.11.2009 learned Magistrate has summoned the accused including the complainant and the injured to face the trial and as such it is a case of two versions. The question as to which party was aggressor and which party was aggressed upon is to be determined by the learned Trial Court after recording of the evidence of the parties. Admittedly, this is a case of two versions, one set out in the F.I.R. And the other in the complaint which was subsequently instituted by the maternal grandfather of the petitioner, which brings the case of the petitioner within the ambit of sub- section (2) of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure. Reliance is placed on the case of "Shoaib Mehmood Butt v. Iftikhar-ul-Haq and three others" (1996 SCM R 1845) wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, at page 1854, was pleased to observe as under:- "16.' In case of counter-versions arising from the same incident, one given by complainant in F.I.R.
And the other given by the opposite party case-law is almost settled that such cases are covered for prant of baii on the ground of further enquiry as contemplated under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. In such cases normally, bail is granted on the ground of further enquiry for the reason 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 counterversions, normally, plead 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 crossca ses the High Court granted bail to the accused on the ground that there was probability of. Counterversion 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 . SCMR682)."
5. For the foregoing, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail after arrest subject to 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.
6. Before parting with this order, it is clarified that the observations made in this order are tentative and relevant only for the purpose of this bail application and shall not influence the trial in any manner whatsoever.