' ALTAF IBRAHIM QURESHI, J.--Petitioner Anwar Hussain seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,132 of 2011 dated 11-4-2011 under sections 324, 337-F(iii), (iv), (v,), 337-L(2), 337-H(2), 337-A(ii) 148, 149, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Harrupa District Sahiwal.
2. Precise allegation against the petitioner is that on 10-4-2011 at about 8/9 a.m. The petitioner along with other co-accused caused injuries to the complainant's companion namely Muhammad Ramzan and Ghulam Farid etc. With their respective weapons of offence hence, this case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is delay of one and a half day in lodging the F.I.R. Which is not properly explained; that case against the petitioner is the result of enmity and injury attributed to the petitioner falls under section 337-A(ii), P.P.C.; that it was a free fight and during the scuffle the petitioner's side was also seriously injured but their injuries have been suppressed by complainant party; that question of vicarious liability cannot determined at this stage rather it shall be finally decided in the trial of both the cases; that petitioner is previously non-convict; that the petitioner is behind the bars and no more required by police for further investigation, hence, he is entitled to concession of post-arrest bail.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General vehemently opposed the bail petition and prayed for its dismissal.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that three persons namely Muhammad Hussain, Muhammad Mumtaz and Shabbir Hussain have also been injured during the scuffle and they were also medically examined by the senior medical officer on 11-4-2011 but the injuries of said injured have been suppressed by the complainant's side. Even otherwise allegation against the petitioner is that he inflicted sota blow to Ghulam Farid on his nose. The injury attributed to the petitioner falls under section 337-A(ii), P.P.C. And punishment provided for this offence is five years which does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.; that application of section 324, P.P.C. Will be determined at the time of trial after recording the evidence. The petitioner is behind the bars since 11-4-2011. Trial of the case is not in sight and keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period would not serve any useful purpose of prosecution. It is pertinent to note that petitioner's side also moved an application under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. For registration of -case titled Anwar Hussein v. The S.H.O. Etc. And vide order dated 22-6-2011 learned Justice of Peace directed the S.H.O. To record the statement of petitioner ,and finding the commission of cognizable offence, convert the said statement into F.I.R. In this view of the matter, at present it is a case of three versions i,e, one put forth by the petitioner, the other contained in the F.I.R. And third one is ipse dixit of police which is not binding on the court. As it is a case of cross version, therefore, the question, as to, which party was aggressor and which party was aggressed upon is the legal ground for further inquiry.
7. For what has been discussed above, the case against the petitioner is that of further inquiry, the instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,100,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.