' SHAHID HAMEED DAR. J.---U mar Hayat petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,118 of 2010 dated 14-6-2010, for an offence under section 337-A(iii)/34, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Quaid-Abad, District Khushab on the complaint of Haliz Muhammad Ayub.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he in the company of his co-accused, armed with sotas, gave blows to the wife of the complainant after she had fallen on the ground, having been charged with a brick-bat on her face by their co-accused Saif-ul-Malook; on hue and cry raised by the complainant side. The witnesses were attracted to the spot who rescued the injured and the complainant. The motive behind the occurrence was a dispute over a wall, which had happened two days ago.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no specific role has been ascribed to the petitioner except the one that he was armed with a rota and he in the company of his co-accused had given, beating to Mst.Walayat Khatoon, the wife of the complainant after she was deflated to the ground due to hurling of a piece of brick by Saiful Malook accused; further contends that the medico-legal report of the injured lady does not corroborate the story contained in the F.I.R. As only one blunt weapon injury has been mentioned by the Medical Officer on the left cheek of the injured P.W.; the petitioner had not taken part in the incident and he has been falsely implicated-due to heart burning and bias of the complainant; further contends that the attending circumstances bring the case of the petitioner within the scope of further inquiry as envisaged under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. And he is entitled to the grant of post-arrest bail.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner with the contention that the petitioner is specifically charged in the F.I.R. With a role that he being armed with a sota mercilessly beat the wife of the complainant and thereby caused a number of injuries on her person; the petitioner himself had admitted in the investigation that it was he who had hurled a piece of brick on the person of Mst. Walayat Khatoon which had landed on her left cheek; the fractural injury on the body of the injured lady falls within the definition of sections 337-A(iii) which catches the prohibition of section 497, Cr.P.C.; the petitioner was found involved in the occurrence and placed in Column No,3 of the challan, which stands submitted before the learned trial Court.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. No specific role has been ascribed to the petitioner except the one that he was armed with a sota, and he in the company of his co-accused gave beating to the wife of the complainant Mst.Walayat Khatoon but the medico-legal report of the said lady is not in line with the same as there is only one blunt weapon injury on her person, the locale, being the left cheek; there is every probability that the injury on the left cheek in fact caused the fracture of the nasal bone of the injured lady. The complainant had categorically burdened Saiful Malook, the co-accused of the petitioner, with the responsibility of causing injury on the left cheek of Walayat Khatoon. By hurling a brickbat on her, due to which, she fell down and thereafter the petitioner and others allegedly pounced upon her and gave her beating. The single injury mentioned by the Medical. Officer in the Medico-legal report, I am afraid, does not corroborate the contention of the complainant. Whether the petitioner had taken part in the incident or not is a question which shall be dealt with by the learned trial Court during the course of the trial. There are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner's case calls for further inquiry within the meaning of section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
7. For what has been discussed above, I accept this petition and admit the petitioner to post-arrest bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,100,000 (rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
8. Before parting with this order, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the proceedings of the trial and conclude the same within five months from the date of receipt of the order of this Court.