This is an application for grant of bail to Muhammad Azad Khan petitioner in a case under section 325/148/149, P.P.C. Registered at P. S. Factory Area, Lahore, vide F.I.R. No. 345/87, dated 15-8-1987.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner and 4 others launched murderous assault on Muhammad Safdar and caused injuries to him. As for the petitioner it has been alleged that he was armed with a Danda and inflicted grievous injury on the hand of Safdar Hussain.
3. On 7-10-1987, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State, I had announced an order granting bail to the petitioner. Before I could sign the order, Mr. Bashir Chughtai, the learned counsel for the complainant entered appearance and stated that the bail order had been obtained by the learned counsel for the petitioner deceitfully, inasmuch as, true facts were not stated by him at the time of hearing of the petition. He stated that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there were cross-cases between the parties and it was yet to be determined as to who was aggressor; was factually incorrect, inasmuch as there was no cross-case in its true sense. On this I declined to sign the order which by that time had been typed and directed re-hearing of the petition.
4. Today, instead of realizing his mistake, the learned counsel for the petitioner has been attempting to convince me that his contention before the Court on 7-10-1987 that the parties had suffered injuries in one and the same occurrence and as such it was yet to be determined as to who was aggressor was fully correct. He also argued that there was inordinate delay in lodging the F.I. R. ; that the injury allegedly caused by the petitioner is not on the vital part of the body; that the offence punishable under section 325, P.P.C. Does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr. P. C . And that since there was a sudden fight, therefore, the act of causing grievous injury would fall within the ambit of section 325, P.P.C. Which is bailable. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this application.'
5. I have considered the submissions by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that the learned counsel for the petitioner had not stated true facts before this Court on 7-10-1987. The F.I.R.
No. 345/87 of this case relates to an occurrence which took place on 13-8-1987 whereas the F.I.R.
Lodged by the accused party of this case relates to an occurrence which took place on 14-8-1987.
In case of F.I.R. Lodged by the accused party Mushtaq injured was examined on 14-8-1987 at 5-15 p.m. And the doctor opined that the injury was caused within 4 hours of the examination. In the instant case Safdar Hussain injured P.W. Was examined on 14-8-1987 at 7-10 p.m. And the doctor opined that the injuries were caused within 18 to 24 hours of the examination. This shows that the parties did not receive injuries during the same occurrence and as such, subsequent F.I.R. No. 437/87 lodged by the accused party relating to an occurrence which took place on 14-8-1987 at 4- 30 p. m. Is not a cross-case in its true sense, so no question for determining as to who was the aggressor, does arise. The specific part of causing grievous injury with a Dand has been attributed to the petitioner. Even in cases which do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
An accused person cannot claim bail as a matter of right and each case has to be decided on its own facts. Before the registration of case a report A was entered in the Roznamcha and it was on the receipt of medico-legal report that a case was registered on 15-8-1987, therefore, there is no inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. Furthermore, there was no fight between the parties at the time of occurrence.
For what has been said above, I am of the view that it is not a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage. The petition is dismissed.