' SHAHID' HAMEED DAR, J.----Seeks bail before arrest in a cross case, recorded in F.I.R. Case No, 332 of 2010 dated 3-11-2010 for offence under sections 324, 148, 149, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Kaleki Mandi, District Hafizabad on the complaint of one Imran Khan.
2. The cross case was recorded by the I.O., on 7-11-2010 for offences under sections 452, 427, 34, P.P.C. On the complaint of Muhammad Shahbaz who has precisely, alleged that Shahid Iqbal accused (petitioner) had visited his house on 3-11-2010 with a view to appease his wife Mst. Kausar Bibi but could not do so as she refused to accompany him because of the maltreatment she was meted out by the accused/petitioner; immediately thereafter, Shahid Iqbal (petitioner) joined by Imran Khan, Yasir Iqbal armed with hatchet, Kassi and Sotas' scaled over the wall of the house of Muhammad Shahbaz complainant and thrashed his wife with their respective weapons; the inmates of the house took refuge in a room and bolted it from inside but, the intruders forcibly broke open the said room; Muhammad Shahbaz with a view to fend off the attack fired with his rifle which hit Shahid Iqbal on his chest; the accused fled away after the occurrence.
3. Imran Khan, co-accused of the petitioner reported the matter to the police at 5-30 p.m on the same day for registration of F.I.R with the contention that his brother Shahid Iqbal had developed some familial differences with his wife who being angry had gone to the house of her parents which was situated close to the house of Imran Khan complainant; Messrs Shahid Iqbal (petitioner), Yasir Iqbal and Imran Khan complainant went to haveli of his paternal uncle/father-in- law Muhammad Shahbaz for fetching back his cattle-head where Muhammad Shahbaz armed with rifle, Zaman Khan armed with Sota, Farman Ali armed with Sota, Mst. Zohra Bibi and Kishwar Bibi attacked them; Zaman Khan and Farman Ali inflicted Sota blows on the person of Imran Khan etc. Whereas Muhammad Shahbaz with intent to kill made a fire shot with his rifle which landed on the left chest of Shahid Iqbal who fell to the ground badly wounded; he was immediately shifted to Civil Hospital Hafizabad, wherefrom, he was referred to Mayo Hospital Lahore because of his precarious condition.
4. Shahid Iqbal was medically examined at DHQ Hospital Hafizabad on 3-11-2010. His MLR entails a firearm injury on the left side of chest measuring 3/4 x 3/4 x DNP (depth not probed), close to left nipple. The injured was referred to Mayo Hospital Lahore for further management and treatment.
5. On a query by this court learned counsel for the complainant (cross case) submits that the wife of Muhammad Shahbaz complainant was not medically examined so there is no MLR to support the allegations contained in the cross case.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case due to malice and ulterior motives of the complainant for the reason that he is the injured P.W of the F.I.R. Case; the real facts of the case have been distorted and suppressed by the complainant of the cross case and he having colluded with the Investigation Officer has got lodged the cross case with, a view to evade the consequences of their criminal act; the complainant party of the cross case had aggressed upon the petitioner and others and that the MLR of Shahid Iqbal petitioner is evident of veracity of the F.I.R. Case; the false implication of the petitioner because of his status of being injured P.W. Of the F.I.R. Case cannot be ruled out; lastly submits that the petitioner's case calls for' further inquiry into his guilt within the meanings of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Relies upon case titled Hamza All Hamza and others v. The State (2010 SCM R 1219) and Muhammad Shahzad Siddique v. The State and another PLD 2009 Supreme Court 58).
7. On the other, hand learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed grant of bail to the petitioner with the contention that the petitioner seeks bail before arrest albeit no evidence qua malice or ulterior motives of the complainant exists on the record; it has been admitted by the petitioner himself that he along with others had gone to haveli of Muhammad Shahbaz where the alleged occurrence took place and thus launching of aggression stands admitted by him; the petitioner and his co- accused have committed anon- bailable offence so he is not entitled to grant of extraordinary relief of bail before arrest.
8. Arguments heard. Record perused.
9. It has been, alleged by the complainant of the cross version that the petitioner along with others being armed with different weapons had trespassed into his haveli, by scaling over its walls and gave beating to his wife. On the other hand the complainant of the F.I.R. Case has alleged that the petitioner along with others had gone to the house of Muhammad Shahbaz, his father-in-law, for bringing some cattle-head back which had been handed over to her parents by the wife of the petitioner. The fire shot on the chest of Shahid Iqbal petitioner has been admitted by Muhammad Shahbaz in his written application for registration of cross case. The MLR of Shahid Iqbal is manifest of a fire arm injury on his chest which speaks volumes about the veracity of the contention of the petitioner. Shahid Iqbal was referred to Mayo Hospital, Lahore as his condition was not found satisfactory by the Medical Officer of DHQ Hospital, Hafizabad where he remained admitted for as many as 16 days as indoor patient. In absence of any medical evidence, it cannot be said with certainty as to whether the contention of Muhammad Shahbaz complainant about thrashing of his wife at the hands of petitioner and his co-accused is true or not. The petitioner is the star witness of the F.I.R. Case being an injured P.W. So the probability that he has been falsely implicated in the cross case due to malice and ulterior motives of the complainant cannot be ruled out. It is difficult at this stage to ascertain as to who was the aggressor. The question regarding initiation of aggression shall be determined by the learned trial court after recording the evidence of the parties during the course of trial. I advantageously rely upon the above cited judgments to observe that reasonable grounds exist to believe that the petitioner's case is open to further probe into his guilt as contemplated under section 497(2), Cr . P. C .
10. For the foregoing reason I accept this application and confirm the ad interim pre-arrest to the petitioner on 15-12-2010 subject to furnishing fresh bail (bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.
Pre-arrest .