ORDER HASSAN RAZA PASHA, J.---Petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.85 dated 7-2-2010 registered under sections 324, 148, 149, 447 and 511, P.P.C. At Police Station Airport Rawalpindi.
2. Allegedly, the petitioner while armed with .12-bore gun along with his co-accused came at the plot recently purchased by the complainant. The petitioner fired at Irshad Abbasi brother of complainant, which missed. The complainant tried to intervene but petitioner made second fire, which hit on the neck of brother of complainant after injuring the right ear who fell down. During scuffle the assailants also caused injuries with iron rods and "Dandas" to their on people.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this is second bail petition of the petitioner. First bail petition was withdrawn on 8-6-2010. It is contended that when the complainant party launched attack on the disputed plot owned by the petitioner, the petitioner himself provided information to Rescue 15 at 1-30 p.m. And then at 2-30 P.M. It is also contended that actually the complainant party was aggressor who launched attack upon the petitioner party due to which five persons namely Ehsan Elahi (petitioner), Asif Elahi, Zahoor Elahi, Aziz Khan and Bakht Meer received injuries. Some of the injuries are serious in nature like fractures of vital parts of the body. It is also contended that in the revenue record petitioner is owner of 24 Kanals adjacent to the disputed plot, which is also owned by him. It is also contended that cross-version was recorded but the police being in league with the complainant party cancelled the same, however, the Illaqa Magistrate disagreed with the opinion of the police. The petitioner party also filed private complaint in which cursory evidence has been recorded. It is further contended that co-accused Bakht Meer who was arrested at the spot made statement that he was actually having the Rifle and the fire was also made by him. Further contends that co-accused of the petitioner have already been granted bail.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on 2010 M LD 250, PLJ 2009 Cr.C. Lahore 1116, 2009 PCr.LJ 1376, 2005 YLR 646 Lahore and 2009 PCr.LJ 908.
4. On the other hand learned DPG as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail on the grounds that first bail petition of the petitioner was dismissed and no fresh ground, is available to move the second bail petition. In cross-version got recorded by the petitioner it is mentioned that during scuffle the shot was fired. The injuries mentioned by the petitioner party are self inflicted and fabricated one. The accused persons got themselves examined at 5-30 p.m.
While the injured P.W. Was examined at 2-40 p.m. It is submitted that according to registered sale deed dated 14-2-2010 complainant is owner of the disputed plot. Further submits that Challan has been submitted in the Court and the case has been adjourned on three dates due to the requests made by the defence side.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Perusal of record reveals that five persons from the accused side including the present petitioner sustained injuries during the occurrence and their cross-version was recorded irrespective of the fact that the same has been cancelled by the police. However the cancellation report of cross- version has been disagreed by the Illaqa Magistrate, which shows that the same is still established against the complainant party. Moreover from the injuries sustained by co-accused Bakht Meer one injury attracts the offence under section 337-A(i.e) (fracture of nosal bone), which is on the vital part of the body and provides 10 years punishment and the other one is fracture of arm, which falls under section 337-F(v). Furthermore argument of learned counsel for the complainant that the injuries received by the accused side are self inflicted has no force because the complainant till now has not challenged the MLRs at any forum. The perusal of record reveals that I.O. While disbelieving the cross-version kept silence regarding the injuries which are sixteen in number on the different parts of the bodies of accused side. No doubt petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. With active role of causing injury to brother of complainant but both the sides claim that the opposite party is aggressor so it is yet to be determined that who is the aggressor and who acted in self defence and whether the self defence was exceeded, which is only possible after recording evidence. Though the complainant in later part of the F.I.R. Tried to explain the injuries sustained by the accused party showing themselves as responsible but the same cannot be considered as truth until and unless the evidence of both the parties is produced before the Court and then after putting both the versions at juxtaposition the same would be evaluated. Petitioner is behind the bars since last four months and no more required for further investigation. In these circumstances he is admitted to bail after arrest subject to furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs.10,00,00 (on lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.