1. MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.---The applicants are booked in Crime No, 65 of 2010 registered with Police Station, Kumb for offences under sections 337A(i), (ii), (iii), 337-F(iii), 337-L(2), 147, 148, 504, 427, P.P.C.
2. The prosecution story as set out in the F.I.R. is as under:-- Complainant Amir Ali lodged his F.I.R. on 26-5-2010 at 6-30 p.m., alleging therein that one Sikandar Ali Shambani had taken 15 Jireb land on lease with promise that he will give half of it to the complainant party, but thereafter he made Wali Muhammad as his partner in the lease, hence they were annoyed with each other. The land of the complainant party is situated in front of house of Wali Muhammad and others and they had damaged the crop of complainant party. 'On the day of incident complainant along with his bothers Fida Hussain, Zulfiqar, Ghulam Shabir and Muhammad Khan went to work on their land, when at about 5-30 hours, present applicants along with Sikandar Ali and two unidentified persons, holding hatchets, iron rods, and lathies in their hands came there. Accused Sikandar Ali and Thaheem caused hatchet blows to Fida Hussain on his head and other parts of body, who fell on the ground and accused Wali Muhammad and Hussain Bux also caused lathi and hatchet blows to him. On the hue and cry of the complainant party, witnesses Taj Mohammad and Pervez Shambani came running. Accused persons also caused hatchet, lathi and iron blows to the complainant's brothers and the witnesses. On their cries, complainant's cousin Dilthar Shambani and others came running and on seeing them, accused persons ran away towards their houses.
3. Applicant's counsel has submitted that the applicants were admitted to interim pre-arrest bail vide order dated 21-7-2010, which is reproduced as under:-- "Heard learned counsel for the applicants/accused. He states that there were two versions and separate F.I.Rs, Nos. 65 of 2010 and 60 of 2010 were recorded by either party against the other and it is to be seen as to which of the two parties was aggressor. He stated that the present applicants did not belong to the aggressor party. He states that due to ulterior motives the applicants have been roped together by the complainant. He has relied upon the case of Jam Sadiq Ali v. The State (1989 PCr.LJ 1910), wherein it has been held that the High Court can in case of bail before arrest touch upon the merits of the case".
4. He further says that in view of above, interim pre-arrest bail granted vide order dated 21-7-2010 be confirmed. He also placed reliance on the case of Shoaib Mehmood Butt v. Iftikhar-ul-Haq and 3 others (1996 SCM R 1845), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the cases of counter-version has held as under:-- "In case of counter-version arising from the same incident, one given by complainant in F.I.R. and the other given by the opposite party it 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 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 counter-versions, normally, plea of private defence is taken giving rise to question as to and which party is aggressor which party is aggressed against".
5. Learned counsel further places reliance on the case of Muhammad Ismail and others v. The State (2008 YLR 47) and Bashir Ahmed and others v. The State (2008 YLR 293). In both above cited judgments above referred judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been followed. Learned counsel further submits that the versions in F.I.Rs, of the parties are to be decided by the learned trial Court after recording of evidence of the parties that which version is correct. Such a situation attracts the provisions of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. calling further enquiry.
6. Learned D.P.-G. has opposed the grant of bail and says that the applicants attacked the complainant party and number of persons were injured in the incident, hence they are not entitled to the pre-arrest bail.
7. In response to above learned counsel for the applicants says that just after half an hour, another F.I.R. was registered in the same Police Station being Crime No,66 of 2010, in which also number of persons were injured.
8. It is settled law that at the bail stage deeper appreciation of material cannot be gone into, but only prima facie it is to be seen whether the applicants are connected with the commission of offence or not. Applying the facts and circumstance of the present case so also rule' laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Shoaib Mehmood Butt (supra), it is a fit case in which interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted vide order dated 21-7-2010 be confirmed on the same terms and conditions. Order accordingly.
9. Bail application stands disposed of accordingly.