ORDER SH. AHMAD FAROOQ, J.---The instant petition for post arrest bail has been filed on behalf of Asghar Ali alias Butt, who is behind the bars, in a case arising out of F.I.R. No.616 of 2009, registered in Police Station Police Station Saddar Kasur, under sections 324/148/149, P.P.C.
2. The background of this case is that Haji Siraj Din lodged an F.I.R. No.616 of 2009, dated 23-8-2009, in Police Station Sadar Kasur, District Kasur, under sections 324/148/149, P.P.C. Against Ghulam Haider, Tariq and four unknown accused on the allegation of launching a murderous assault in order to take over the possession of the land in dispute. Thereafter, the accused of the said F.I.R., namely, Tariq Mahmood got recorded his cross-version wherein he alleged that Asghar Ali alias Butt/present petitioner, who was armed with .244 bore Rifle, fired a bullet with his rifle which hit his brother namely, Ghulam Haider, on hit right thigh. Tariq Mahmood has also alleged that the remaining accused, namely, Asghar son of Sher Muhammad, Khalid, Naseer and Malik Ghulam Qadir caused injuries with their respective weapons on the person of Ghulam Haider,
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a case of cross-version and it will be determined during the trial that which party was the .Aggressor. He further submitted that there is a contradiction in the ocular account and the medical evidence. He maintained that the place of occurrence was the residence of the present petitioner. He stated that not only the Investigating Officer has held the complainant party as aggressor but also the injury sustained by Ghulam Haider is on non-vital part of his body. Lastly, he argued that during the investigation, the petitioner was only found to be present at the time of the occurrence without causing any, injury to any person. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of further enquiry, entitling him to be released on bail.
4. Conversely, the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant opposed the instant petition on the plea that the present petitioner is specifically nominated in the cross-version and he remained absconder for at least one year and was arrested on 31-8-2010. He further submitted that the injury' caused by the present petitioner to Haider Ali falls within the mischief of section 337-A(i.e) P.P.C., the punishment of which may extend to ten years, attracting the provisions of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. He claimed that the injury inflicted by the present petitioner was on the vital part of the body of the victim/Haider Ali, who remained admitted in the hospital for a sufficient longtime.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Admittedly, it is a case of cross-version and it would only be decided during the trial after recording of evidence that which party was the aggressor. The cross-version was got recorded by Tariq Mahmood on 23-8-2009 and thereafter, the statement of the victim/Haider Ali, under section 161, Cr.P.C, was reduced into writing on 14-9-2009, wherein, he contradicted the story of the cross- version. A The victim/Haider Ali stated that Asghar son of Sher caused an injury on his right thigh with a bullet fired with .244 bore Rifle, whereas the in the cross-version dated 23-8-2009, the said injury is attributed to the present petitioner. Similarly, the injured alleged that Asghar alias Butt/present petitioner fired a bullet with his .30 bore pistol which hit him on the left calf of his left leg. Hence, prima facie, there is a contradiction in the ocular account as narrated in the cross- version and the statement of Haider Ali, recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C., on 14-9-2009 as well as the medico-legal examination certificate. Moreover, Investigation Officer, vide report dated 58, dated 31-8-2010, has opined that Asghar Ali alias Butt was only present at the time of occurrence but did not cause any injury to any one with fire arm. It is also worth consideration that no weapon of offence has been recovered from the present petitioner during the investigation. The petitioner is behind the bars since 31-8-2010 and his role in the occurrence requires further probe and inquiry.
The mere fact that the present petitioner remained absconder for about one year is not a ground to decline bail, if he is otherwise entitled to the same on merit. (Reliance is placed on the case of Asghar Ali v. The State (PLD 2008 Lahore 191). Simlarly, it has been held in Abdul Karim v. Pak State and another (2004 MLD 1448) that the abscondence of an accused person is no proof of his guilt, rather, only a suspicion. Lastly, further inquiry is invariably required in the cross-version cases. In this regard, reference could be made to the cases reported as Muhammad Shahzad Siddiqui v. The State and another (PLD 2009 SC 58), Aman Ullah v. The State (2009 PCr.LJ 1254) and Nazir Ahmad v.
The State (2008 YLR 2098).
7. The upshot of the above discussion is that the case of the present petitioner falls within the ambit of further inquiry, entitling him to be released on bail. Consequently, the instant post arrest bail petition, filed on behalf of Asghar Ali alias Butt, is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to their furnishing of bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000, with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the leaned trial Court.