RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, J. - The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 73, dated 10.4.2010 under Section 302, P.P.C. Police Station Jatali, District Rawalpindi.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution version as set forth in the F.I.R. Recorded on the statement of Mukhtar Hussain son of Muhammad Banaras Caste Gujjar aged about 33/34 years, labourer, resident of Cheechi Chohan are that Millad Sharif was to be celebrated in Madrissa Ghousia in the village and for this purpose eatable goods were purchased on 9.4.2010 and were kept in the house of Muhammad Anees petitioner. On the day of occurrence i.e. 10,4.2010 the complainant alongwith his brothers. Tahir Mahmood & Zahid Mahmood and Rustam Ali son of Ghulam Aksar went to the house of the petitioner and entered in the house at about 11.00 a.m. The petitioner armed with spear was present in his house, who said to Tahir Mahmood that he had forbidden him from visiting his house, so why he had came there. Immediately thereafter, he gave a blow with spear on the left side of the abdomen of Tahir Mahmood which crossed through his body, who fell on the ground in an injured condition and succumbed to the injuries on his way to the hospital. The motive was stated to be strained relations between the deceased and the petitioner due to dispute over money and for this reason they were not on visiting terms to each other's house.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in fact an altercation had taken place between Tahir Mahmood deceased and the petitioner few days prior to the occurrence as the deceased had teased Mst. Sadia Batool petitioner's sister and the petitioner insulted the deceased at the public place but the respectables of the locality patched up the matter. On the day of occurrence, the deceased alongwith others armed with 'dandas' and hatchet entered in the house and tried to drag daughter of Muhammad Afsar, sister of the deceased and on this petitioner's father gave a blow with spear in order to save his daughter. It is stated that case F.I.R. No. 260, dated 19.10.2010 was registered under the orders of this Court because the police had not registered the case due to influence of the complainant party.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that the petitioner is specifically nominated in the F.I.R. And weapon of offence i.e. Has been recovered on his disclosure and pointation. It is stated that a false cross-case was got registered after six months of the occurrence which has no value in the eyes of law.
5. The occurrence had taken place as per site plan prepared on the pointation of PW's and under the instructions of the police in the house, of the petitioner. The deceased and all PWs were present in the courtyard of the house as alleged, in the F.I.R. The deceased and the petitioner were not on visiting terms to each other house, so presence of the deceased and the PWs including his brothers in the house of the petitioner/accused gives rise to many questions specially when the petitioner and the deceased had money dispute and were not on visiting terms to each others house. In these circumstances the prosecution contention that they had kept eatable goods there and had gone to fetch the same also needs further probe. Only one injury was allegedly inflicted and the petitioner had not repeated the blows. There is a cross-version of the occurrence which had taken place in the house of the petitioner, which corresponds to the first version of the accused given at the time of his arrest. The father of the petitioner/accused had specifically alleged that the deceased, his brothers and Rustam Ali etc. Trespassed into the house and tried to abduct his daughter due to the altercation which had taken place few days back over teasing petitioner's sister. It is true that F.I.R. At the Instance of the father of the petitioner was recorded at a belated stage but it was recorded only after the orders of this Court. In view of the cross-version, the fact that the occurrence took place in the house of petitioner non-repetition of the blows by the petitioner and improbable reasons advanced for presence of the deceased and the PWs in the house of the petitioner, the case against the petitioner clearly needs further probe and inquiry within the meanings of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. It is a settled law that if two cross-versions have been put forth and plausible, then he should be given the concession of bail. In this respect reliance is placed on 2009 SCM R 324 and 2010 P.Cr.L J. 512.
For the reasons supra, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject, to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.