' SALMAN TALIBUDDIN, J.---This is an application under section 497, Cr.P.C., praying that the applicants namely Muhammad Ilyas son of Abdul Manan Leghari and Mumtaz All son of MuneerAhmed Leghari be admitted to bail in Crime No,2 of 2007, Police Station Gulab Leghari, under sections 302, 324, 504, 34, P.P.C. Arguments were heard on 12-6-2009 and orders thereon were reserved.
2. The narration of the facts in this paragraph are based on the English translation of the F.I.R.
Attached to the bail application. The complainant in this case is Abdul Aziz Leghari son of Haji Muhammad Raheem Leghari. According to him, his grandfather, Ghaman Khan has expired and agricultural land measuring 37 ghuntas belonging to his , grandfather is being cultivated by the complainant party. There is a dispute related to this land between the complainant party and the complainant's cousin Muneer Ali Leghari and his son Mumtaz Ali Leghari. As a result of this dispute, relations between the two sides are not good. On 26-6-2007 the complainant, his brother Muhammad Suleman (aged about thirty years) and his father Muhammad Raheem Leghari were working on the land when, at about 0900 hours, Muhammad Ilyas son of Abdul Manan Leghari (who was armed with a hatchet), Muneer Ahmed son of Muhammad Ibrahim Leghari (who was armed with a wooden piece), and Mumtaz Ali son of Muneer Ahmed (who was armed with a hatchet) came running over to them and started abusing them and asking why their share of the grandfather's land was not being given to them. On being asked by the complainant party to restrain themselves from abusing, Muhammad Ilyas became annoyed and inflicted a blow with his hatchet on the complainant's brother Muhammad Suleman and Mumtaz Ali inflicted a hatched blow on the head of the complainant's father intending to kill them both. Muneer Ahmed also inflicted blows with the wooden piece on the head and other body parts of the complainant's brother and father intending to kill them. On hearing the complainant party's hue and cries one Sultan came there and intervened in an attempt to rescue the complainant party. During the altercation the accused also received injuries. Due to the serious injuries sustained by his brother and father, the complainant obtained a letter from the police station and took them to RHC Tando Ghulam Hyder. From there he obtained a further letter for their treatment at LMCH Hyderabad where his brother, Muhammad Suleman, succumbed to his injuries at about 1215 hours on 3-3- 2007. Leaving the body of his brother at the hospital, the complainant lodged the F.I.R. At 0230 hours on the same day against Muhammad Ilyas, Mumtaz Ali and Muneer Ahmed for inflicting injuries on the complainant's father and brother with intention to kill them as a result of which the complainant's brother Muhammad Suleman expired.
3. It appears that an F.I.R., (No,3 of 2007) arising out of the same incident on 26-2-2007 has also been registered by the applicant/accused Mumtaz All in the same police station against Haji Muhammad Raheem Leghari and Muhammad Suleman. A certified true copy of this F.I.R. Is also on file. On the basis of the English translation on file, the complaint in this F.I.R. Is that during the altercation Muhammad Suleman inflicted lathi blows on Mumtaz Ali's head and Haji Muhammad Raheem Leghari inflicted lathi blows on the right arm of Muneer Ahmed. Injuries were also suffered by the accused in this case. According to the complainant Mumtaz Ali, it was Muhammad Ilyas who intervened and brought an end to the altercation.
4. The present applicants moved an application seeking bail before the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Badin which was dismissed vide order dated 30-5-2008 hence this application to this Court. Meanwhile, Haji Muhammad Raheem Leghari was granted pre-arrest bail in Crime No, 3 of 2007 by the same learned Court vide order dated 23-7-2007.
5. In support of this application learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants are entitled to bail in view of the 9 days delay in lodging the F.I.R, There is no plausible explanation for this delay even though the police station is about 4 kilometers from the place of the incident. Learned counsel also stressed the fact that the dispute between the Parties relates to the land and that each side has lodged a complaint arising out of the same incident. Both complaints allege injuries caused by each side to the other and it cannot be said at this stage as to who caused which injury to whom. The fact that this doubt arises in the circumstances of the case entitles the applicants to the benefit of bail. Learned counsel has also referred to a discrepancy between the ocular and the medical evidence in that while Muhammad Suleman is said to have suffered hatchet blows, the medical report does not contain any mention of any injury that would be caused by a hatchet and identifies the injuries as one caused by a blunt object. According to learned counsel the accused in Crime No, 3 of 2007 (which was lodged by the applicant Mumtaz Ali first in time) has been admitted to bail while the present applicants have been confined since 5-3- 2007 and, while the case has been challaned before the trial Court, charge has not been framed against them as yet.
6. In support of this application learned counsel has relied on the following cases; Shoaib Mehmood Butt v. Iftikhar-ul-Haq, 1996 SCMR 1985; Moeenuddin v. The State 1999 PCr.LJ 810; Ghulam Haider v. The State PLD 2003 Karachi 603; Shabbir alias Ghulam Shabbir v. The State 2005 PCr.LJ 38 and Mushtaq Ahmed v. The State 2008 M LD 232.
7. In Shoaib Mehmood Butt's case the honourable Supreme Court recognized that bail is to be allowed if it appears to the Court that there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into the guilt of the accused and relying on its earlier judgments in Fazal Muhammad v. Ali Ahmed, 1976 SCM R 391 and Shafiqan v. Hashim Ali and others, 1972 SCM R 682, held as follows in cases where there are cross-versions arising out of the same occurrence:-- ' 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 grant of bail 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 trial Court which is supposed to record evidence and also appraise the same in order to come to a final conclusion in this regard.
8. The Court in Moeenuddin as well as in Mushtaq Ahmed relied on the judgment in Shoaib Mehmood Butt's case and admitted the accused to bail in circumstances where the Court found that the occurrence gave rise to different versions of how it took place and who the aggressor was, thus rendering it one of further enquiry.
9. Ghulam Haider was also a case where there were counter-versions and the Court was pleased to grant bail to the applicant (who had been in custody for over two years) on the basis that the accused in the counter-case had been granted bail and the role of the applicant/accused, was not inch much different from the co-accused. Additionally, the medical report was no in consonance with the version recorded in the F.I.R.
10. In Shabbir alias Ghulam Shabbir v. The State, the accused was admitted to bail in circumstances where he had been in custody for almost four years and no progress had been made in the case inasmuch as even the charge had not been framed.
11. In response the learned counsel for the State opposed the grant of bail on the ground that this was a murder case where the applicants have been named and assigned a specific role in the commission of the offence. Learned counsel also submitted, that there was no discrepancy in the ocular and medical evidence since that injury by a blunt object can be attributed to the other end of a hatchet which is blunt.
12. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel and have reviewed the record on file. Amongst the inconsistencies in the cross-versions is the role assigned to Muhammad Ilyas (applicant No, 1 in the instant case). According to the complainant in the instant case, Muhammad Ilyas appears to be the person who started the altercation by inflicting a blow to Muhammad Suleman while the role assigned to Muhammad Ilyas in the counter case (No,3 of 2007) is that of the alleged peace-maker who intervened and brought an end to the quarrel. Further, insofar as the instant case is concerned, all three persons (Muhammad Ilyas, Mumtaz Ali and Muneer Ahmed) are alleged to have caused blows to the deceased Muhammad Suleman and there is nothing on record at this stage from which it can be said whether, and if so, which of the three inflicted the injury that caused the death of Muhammad Suleman. That being so, and relying on the judgments cited by learned counsel for the applicants, I find that this is a case of further enquiry entitling the applicants to the grant of bail.
13. In view of the foregoing, the applicants namely Muhammad Ilyas son of Abdul Manan Leghari and Mumtaz Ali son of Muneer Ahmed Leghari are admitted to bail subject to each of them furnishing surety in the sum of Rupees 200,000 (Rupees Two Hundred Thousand) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.