' RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, J.---At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at the bar that during investigation section 336, P.P.C. Has also been added so he be allowed to insert the said section in the head note of the plaint. In view of the fact that section 336, P.P.C. Was added vide case diary No, 14 dated 10-1-2011, the permission to amend to the petition accordingly granted. The amendment has been made.
2. The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case cross version recorded under sections 337-A(ii)/337- A(1)/337-F(i)/336/ 148/149, P.P.C. Of case F.I.R. No, 420, dated 20-12-2010, under sections 337-A(ii)/ 148/149, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Tulamba District Khanewal.
3. The facts in brief as emerge on the perusal of record are that the above mentioned F.I.R. Was recorded on 20-12-2010 on the statement of Qaisar Abbas, brother of the present petitioner. He alleged that on 19-12-2010 at about 10-00 a.m., he along with his brother Khizar Hayat (petitioner) and his mother was present in his house, when Malik Ghulam Hussain armed with sota, Nasir armed with hatchet, Jamshed, Mujahid, Balli, while armed with sotas arrived and raised Lalkara that they would teach a lesson for not allowing them to irrigate their lands. Ghulam Hussain gave a blow on the head of the complainant, whereas Nasir Hussain gave a blow with hatchet which landed on the head of Khizar Hayat petitioner. Blow given by blushed landed on the arm of his brother. The occurrence was witnessed by Muhammad Aslam and Ameer Haider etc. On 23-12- 2010 Nasir Ali, one of the accused persons got recorded the cross version wherein he alleged that on 19-12-2010 at about 10-00 a.m. They had gone to their land to check wheat crop when the petitioner armed with knife along with other co-accused who were also armed with lethal weapons arrived there. Allegedly, the petitioner gave a blow with knife the right eye of Nasir Ali whereas Qaisar Hayat and Sikandar gave blows to Mujahid Hussain.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the F.I.R. Was promptly lodged by Qaisar Abbas, wherein the true facts were narrated; that there is an inordinate delay in putting forth the cross version; that four injuries were sustained by Qaisar Abbas complainant of the F.I.R. And the petitioner; that it would be determined only after recording of the evidence and appraisal of the same as to who had launched the aggression so the case clearly needs further probe and inquiry.
In support of the contentions raised,"reliance is placed on PLD 2009 Supreme Court 58 (Muhammad Shahzad. Siddique v. The State and another).
5. Learned D.P.-G. Assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the petition. It is contended that the petitioner and others after causing the injuries to Nasir Ali and Mujahid Hussain got registered the F.I.R. On the basis of false and twisted facts; that according to the F.I.R. The petitioner had sustained injury with the hatchet but in fact the injury on his head appears to have been caused with blunt weapon so the contents of the F.I.R. Are totally false.
6. The matter was reported through Report No, 6 dated 19-12-2010 at about 10-30 a.m. Whereas the occurrence had taken place at about 10-00 a.m. And at that time, the petitioner was also produced in an injured condition and was then examined in the hospital on the same day. It is true that the injury appears to have been inflicted with blunt weapon but if the hatchet -falls from the wrong side then a lacerated wound is caused instead of an incised wound. Qaisar Abbas complainant of the F.I.R. Also sustained injuries but these injuries have not been explained in the cross version put forth on 23-12-2010. No doubt Nasir Ali and Mujahid Hussain also sustained injuries and Nasir Ali has lost one eye but no explanation is given as to how the complainant and petitioner had sustained injuries. It appears to be a case of open fight between two rival groups. It would be determined only after recording of the evidence and evaluation of the same as to who had launched the aggression. From this angle, the case clearly needs further probe and inquiry within the meanings of section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
7. For the reasons supra, the petition is accepted and petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.