The petitioner Habibullah, Zakir Hussain and Muhammad Naeem seek their pre-arrest bail in case FIR No, 281/2011, dated 06.06.2011, registered at Police Station Luddan, District Vehari, under Sections 377-F(ii), 337-A(i)/148/149 PPC.
2. The story of the FIR is that the petitioners, along with their co-accused trespassed into the house of the complainant at about 6:00 a.m. where, they abused him and when Shahzad Nadeem, a brother of the complainant forbade, them Muhammad Naeem/Petitioner No, 3 inflicted a blow with an iron rod at his left rib, Haq Nawaz inflicted a blow of Sota at the back' of Shahzad Nadeem, co- accused Shah Nawaz inflicted a blow of iron rod at the right arm of Shahzad Nadeem, Muzaffar Nadeem, a brother of the complainant was given a Sota blow by Haq Nawaz at his wrist, Zakir Hussain/Petitioner No, 2 inflicted a blow with an iron rod hitting at the left calf of Muzaffar Nadeem and another iron rod blow was given by him at the head of Azhar Javed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that in fact, there is a dispute about a piece of land measuring 04-kanal; Habibullah/Petitioner No, 1 is not attributed any injury and the injury attributed to Petitioner No, 2 Zakir Hussain at the left calf of Muzaffar Nadeem, does not figure in M.L.0 of Muzaffar Nadeem and the injury attributed to him at the head of Azhar Javed has been found as Shajjahi-Khafifah which offence is bailable. It is next contended that the injury attributed to Muhammad Naeem/Petitioner No, 3 at the left rib of Shahzad Nadeem also does not find any mention in the, MLC. There is a delay of sixteen days in lodging the FIR. According to the MLCs. all the injuries were caused with sharp edged weapons but, as per story of FIR, the alleged injuries were caused by blunt weapons. During the investigation, it was found that the story of the FIR about the trespassing into house of the complainant is false rather, the complainant party has been, found aggressor.
4. Conversely, learned D.P.G assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail petition. Learned D.P.G. has, however, conceded that vide case Diary No, 4 recorded on 17.06.2011 Muhammad Yousaf S.I., the complainant party was found aggressor. The learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail petition maintaining that even the commission of offences under Sections 452 and 354 PPC was also made out from the contents of the FIR.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. During the investigation, the I.O. has come to the conclusion vide case Diary No, 4 dated 17.06.2011 that in fact, the complainant party was aggressor and the petitioners had never trespassed into the house of the complainant. Habibullah/Petitioner No, 1 is not attributed any injury. Zakir Hussain was ascribed the role of inflicting a blow with an iron rod at the left calf of Muzaffar Nadeem and another blow at the head of Azhar Javed. The MLC of Muzaffar Nadeem, however, shows that, he had suffered only one injury which was an incised wound at the outer side of upper 1/3 of right leg.
The said injury was found as "Ghayer-jaifah-Badihah" falling under Section 337-F(ii), PPC and the said injury as per MLC was attributed to co-accused Shah Nawaz and not to Zakir Hussain.
Petitioner No, 2 Zakir Hussain was ascribed the injury at the head of Azhar Javed and the said injury, as per MLC of Azhar Javed, has been found as Shajjah-i-Khafifah falling within the purview of Section 337-A(i), PPC which offence is bailable. Muhammad Nadeem Petitioner No, 3 was ascribed the role of inflicting an injury at the left rib of Shahzad Nadeem but in the MLC, no such injury finds mention. Apart from that, Petitioners 2 & 3 were shown to be armed with iron rods but according to the MLCs, the injuries were the result of sharp edged weapons. In the FIR itself, it is mentioned that there is a dispute of land between the parties so, previous enmity is admitted. Keeping in view all these circumstance, the false implication of the petitioners in this case cannot be ruled out, hence, the ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners in the case is confirmed subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds to the tune of Rs, 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Area Magistrate/Trial Court within a fortnight failing which, the bail petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed.