' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---Taskeen Abbas Shah, a police head-constable is the complainant of case F.I.R. No,30 of 2011 dated 13-1-2011 under sections 302, 324, 365, 511, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station, Wah Cantt., District Rawalpindi, who has precisely alleged in the F.I.R. That he visited his friends Jaffar Khan and Aurangzeb at Hassan Abdal on 13-1-2011; they set out for inspection of a house together, as they had been asked to do so by Rafi Ullah Pathan (petitioner); they walked towards the said house and crossed Awan Chowk at about 7-15 p.m., where they saw a man standing close to a vehicle who, on seeing them, made a telephone call with his cell phone and within flash of an eye, pulled out his pistol and fired straight at the complainant which hit his frontal thigh; they started running to save their lives and reached Awan Chowk, where, 3/4 armed persons of different age group intercepted them who, opened indiscriminate firing upon them; Jaffar Khan and Aurangzeb were deflated to the ground with bullet injuries while complainant was gunned down by them with an injury in the chest; the accused after commission of offence ran-away; the injured were immediately shifted to Civil Hospital, Taxila but Jaffar Khan succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital; Rafi Ullah Pathan etc., 3/4 persons had committed the occurrence with community of intention by spraying volleys of bullets, at the spot; the motive behind the occurrence was that sometimes earlier, an abductor was caught by the complainant from the area of Lala Rukh Wah Cantt. Who was a relation to the above said accused and due to this grudge they committed the occurrence.
2. The complainant got recorded his supplementary statement before the I.O. On 20-1-2011, whereby, he contended that he along with his friends Jaffar Khan and Aurangzeb had been fired at by a youthful person, as a result whereof, they all three received multiple firearm injuries; they despite being badly wounded, ran for saving their lives but they were overpowered and given kick/list blows by Rafi Ullah Pathan etc. At some distance from the place where they had been fired at. He, however, failed to nominate the above said youthful person, responsible for having injured him and his two companions, including Jaffar Khan deceased.
3. The Investigating Officer collected some important items from the place of occurrence on his first visit to the spot which included a pistol .9 M.M along with magazine and live bullets, belonging to the complainant, 4 crime empties of .9 M.M, a syringe filled with some medicinal liquid which could cause unconsciousness and a Kalashnikov, which lay in the vehicle of Rafi Ullah Pathan petitioner.
4. The complainant and Aurangzeb injured were medically examined at THQ Hospital Taxila, the same day and their MLRs show multiple firearm injuries on their persons. Rafi Ullah Pathan (petitioner) who too, had firearm injuries on his left hand was medically, examined at the same hospital on 16-1-2011, courtesy local police and his MLR shows four lacerated firearm wounds on the palmer aspect of the left hand.
5. The dead body of Jaffar Khan deceased was dissected at the same hospital on 13-1-2011. The necropsy report qua the deceased shows three firearm injuries on the dead body.
6. The injuries of Rafi Ullah Pathan (petitioner) were not disclosed by the complainant in the F.I.R. His statement, however, was rendered into a cross version by the I.O. On 31-1-2011, wherein, he (petitioner) alleged that the complainant, in cahoots of his aides, had attempted to abduct him on the day of the occurrence, he showed resistance due to which he was fired at by the alleged abductors and thus, he received firearm injuries on his person.
7. Leaned Deputy Prosecutor General after going through the record submits that accused of the F.I.R. Case and that of the cross version case had been found involved in the occurrence by the I.O.
And two separate reports under section 173, Cr.P.C. Had been submitted before the learned trial court by him, against the respective accused.
8. The petitioner was arrested in this case, according to the record on 16-1-2011 and was despatched to judicial lockup on 29-1-2011 but nothing was recovered from his possession in the intervening period.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case through a distorted version of the complainant; the occurrence mentioned in the F.I.R. Is false and the real facts have been suppressed by the complainant so as to withhold the truth and paint a picture of his own choice; the petitioner has not been burdened with the liability of firing at the deceased or the injured witnesses and the only allegation against him is, that he along with his companions gave fist and kick blows to the complainant party but the medical evidence does not corroborate the said allegation; the petitioner was taken into custody by the police on the very day of the occurrence and did not record his arrest being hands in glove with the complainant, who was a police official, therefore, an application was filed against the local police for recovery of the petitioner and in consequence thereof, the police rushed into recording his arrest on 16-1-2011; the MLR pertaining to the petitioner strongly supports the cross version and being a case of two versions, the case of the petitioner constitutes need for further inquiry into his guilt within the ambit of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Relies upon Shoaib Mehmood Butt v. Iftikhar-ul-Haq and 3 others (1996 SCM R 1845).
10. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General has opposed grant of bail to the petitioner with the contention that he stands nominated in the F.I.R. Being the principal accused as it was he who had invited the complainant and his friends for inspection of a house, situated at Hassan Abdal where he and his friends committed the gruesome crime; the prosecution case brims with connecting evidence against the petitioner who has committed an offence which squarely falls under prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C, so, he may not be released on bail.
11. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I find that the supplementary statement of the complainant had entirely changed the tenor of the F.I.R. Case as he, in sharp contrast to his earlier version recorded under section 154, Cr.P.C, has contended in his later statement that an unknown armed youth had resorted to incessant firing upon them at the time of occurrence, as a result whereof, he along with Jaffar Khan (deceased) and Aurangzeb received multiple firearm injuries. It divulges from the record that the petitioner had also received firearm injuries during the occurrence which fact has not been disclosed by the complainant either in the F.I.R. Or in his supplementary statement. The eye-witnesses, recorded by the police under section 161, Cr.P.C. Are also silent about this fact. The submission of separate challans under section 173, Cr.P.C. In both the transactions, one in the F.I.R. Case and the other in the cross case, is a circumstance which makes it a case of two versions and which one is nearer to truth, shall be assessed by the learned trial court, after recording the evidence of the parties during trial. The injuries on the person of the petitioner have been suppressed by the complainant and nothing can be said at this stage, whether the petitioner had received the injuries while showing resistance against the complainant party, in the alleged act of abduction or he committed aggression against his adversaries. Who is the aggressor in the instant case and who has been aggressed upon is a crucial question which cannot be answered at this juncture. In Shoaib Mehmood Butt's case (1996 SCM R 1845), the apex court of the country has dealt with an identical proposition with the following observation:- "In case of counter-versions arising from the same incident, one given by complainant in F.I.R. And the other given by the opposite-party---Case-law is almost settled that such cases are covered for grant of bail on the ground of further enquiry as contemplated under section 497(2), Cr.P.C.--- In such cases normally; bail is granted on the ground of further enquiry for the reason that the question as to which version is correct is to be decided by the trial Court which is supposed to record evidence and also appraise the same in order to come to a final conclusion in this regard- --In cases of counter-version, normally, plea of private defence is taken giving rise to question as to which party is aggressor and which party is aggressed---In the case of Fazal Muhammad v. Ali Ahmed (1976 SCMR 391) in cross-cases the High Court granted bail to the accused on the ground that there was probability of counter-version being true as some of the accused had received injuries including a grievous injury on the head of one accused---It was held by this Court that in such circumstances the High Court was right in granting bail and no interference was warranted- - In the same context, reference can be made to the case of Mst. Shafiqan v. Hashim Ali and others (1972 SCMR 682).
' The cross case got lodged by the petitioner stood the test of investigation and the accused mentioned therein have been challaned by the police to stand trial.
12. The medical evidence is not consistent with the allegation that Rafi Ullah Pathan petitioner and his co-accused had given fist and kick blows to the deceased or to the injured P. Ws. As none of them bore any blunt weapon injury (ics) on their person. The petitioner underwent physical remand of 13 days but it did not yield to the discovery/reccivery of any incriminating evidence against him. The supplementary statement of the complainant, the inconsistent medical evidence, the suppression of injuries of the petitioner, the challaning of the accused of the cross case, set-up by the petitioner, barren physical remand of the petitioner for 13 A days and the mystery hovering over the prosecution case as to the initiation of launching of aggression are the circumstances which make the case of the petitioner one of further inquiry as contemplated under section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
13. Resultantly, the instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.