Petitioner Muhammad Saleem through Crl. Misc. No, 13038-B/2011, accused of cross-version under Section 324 PPC whereas petitioners Nadeem Akram and Akbar Ali through Crl. Misc. No, 14220- B/2011, accused of case FIR No, 353 dated 27.06.2011 under Sections 302, 324, 109 & 148/149 PPC registered at P.S Mochiwala District Jhang, have sought their post arrest bail. Since both the petitions mentioned above have arisen out of same FIR soare being disposed of together through this single Order.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner. Muhammad Saleem contends that the petitioner is the accused of cross-version that was recorded on the next date of the occurrence only to save the skin of the accused of FIR that is totally fabricated; that the petitioner was badly injured by the accused of main FIR who received four blunt weapon injuries. Further contends that medical evidence does not corroborate the version of the complainant mentioned in the cross-version, as the injury attributed to the petitioner is an exit wound of Injury No, 1 attributed to co-accused of the petitioner namely Kashif; that the doctor while declaring the result of under observation injuries has categorically stated that Injuries No, 1 & 2 are entry and exit wounds of a single injury and Injury No, 2 is continuation of Injury No, 1 that is an exit wound. Further contends that, no weapon of offence was recovered from, the petitioner during the investigation; that in view of glaring contradiction between the medical evidence and the ocular account furnished by the complainant of the cross- version, case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry into his guilt.
While opposing the bail petition of the accused/petitioners of the main FIR, learned counsel contends that they are nominated in the FIR with the specific role of firing at the injured PWs; that weapons of offence have been recovered from them; that they are also vicariously liable for the every act of their co-accused and that motive is also attributed to petitioner Nadeem Akram.
3. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners Nadeem Akram and Akbar Ali contends that no specific role has been attributed to the petitioners and there is general allegation of firing against them. Further contends that infact the complainant party of the FIR was aggressor at the time of occurrence and they suppressed the injuries having been received by three persons of accused side that reflects their malafide; that no injury has been attributed to the petitioners on the person of the deceased in this case. Further adds that seven accused mentioned in the FIR have already been allowed bail by the learned trial Court and case of the petitioners is at par with the case of said co-accused except the alleged recovery of weapons of offence and that petitioner Akbar Ali was allegedly armed with a repeater .12-bore but during the investigation the police has shown recovery of a pistol from him.
While opposing bail petition of Muhammad Saleem, accused of cross-version, learned counsel submits that after thorough investigation, complainant side of FIR has been found to be aggressor; that mere informing the police at the first instance does not give licence of truthfulness; that the petitioner is nominated in the cross-version with a specific, role of tiring at the injured Usman Ali and he is not entitled for bail.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. Petitioner Muhammad Saleem who is accused of cross-version has been alleged to have caused a firearm injury on the left side of buttock of Usman Ali that was kept under Observation at the time of medical examination of the said injured. Subsequently, the Medical Officer has declared that Injury No, 2 is continuation of Injury No, 1 which has been attributed to co-accused Kashif and Injury No, 2 is an exit wound. Weapon of offence has not been recovered from the petitioner during the investigation. Injured Usman Ali who is also accused of the FIR has been granted pre-arrest bail by the learned trial Court. In view of the conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidence, case against the petitioner, squarely falls within the purview of sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. and is one of further inquiry into his guilt.
6. So far as petitioners Nadeem Akram and Akbar Ali, who are accused of FIR; are concerned; it is a case of cross-version and the FIR is silent about the injuries having been sustained by the accused party of the FIR during the same occurrence. No specific role has been attributed to the petitioners in the FIR and only collective allegation of firing at the injured PWs has been levelled against him.
They have not been alleged to have caused any injury to the deceased. Petitioner Akbar Ali has been shown to be armed with repeater .12-bore in the FIR, however, a pistol has allegedly been recovered from him during the investigation. In view of the above, case against the petitioners, prima facie, fails within the purview of sub-section (2) of Section 497. Cr.P.0 and is one of further inquiry into his guilt.
7. For what has been discussed above, I admit both Muhammad Saleem, accused of cross-version and Nadeem Akram and Akbar Ali, accused of FIR, to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
8. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are just tentative in nature and strictly confined to the disposal of these bail petitions.