' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.--- Abdul Jabbar, Muhammad Aslant and Muhammad Nisar (petitioners) seek bail before arrest in case-F.I.R. No.468 of 2012 dated 13-9-2012 registered for offences under sections 317-A(iii), 337-F(v), 337-L(2), 34, P.P.C/ at Police Station Saddar Arifwala (Pa attan Sharif).
2. Precisely, the prosecution case as stated by Mst.Rani Bibi, in the noted F.I.R. Is that Abdul Jabbar (petitioner) armed with sota, Muhammad Aslam (petitioner) armed with sota, Muhammad Nisar (petitioner) armed with an iron rod and accused Khushi Muhammad,' armed with sota attacked her husband Noor Ahmad and son Subeh Sadiq, at 4-00 p.m. On 10-9-2012 and badly wounded them by inflicting injuries on various parts of their bodies; Abdul Jabbar (petitioner) gave a sota blow on the left arm of Noor Ahmad, Muhammad Aslam (petitioner) inflicted an injury on the nose of Noor Ahmad, whereas, Muhammad Nisar (petitioner) caused an injury on the left hand of her son Subeh Sadiq; the motive behind the occurrence pertained to a previous dispute between the parties.
3. The Investigating Officer recorded statement of Abdul Jabbar (petitioner) on 16-9-2012 to record a cross-case for offences under sections 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-F(v), 337-L(2), 34 P.P.C., which reveals the time of occurrence as 6-00 p.m. On 10-9-2012. According to the cross-case Muhammad Aslam (petitioner) and Muhammad Nisar (petitioner) received multiple injuries during the occurrence at the hands of the accused who are Noor Ahmad and others.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely involved in this case due to malice and ulterior motives of the complainant; the facts of the case have been distorted by Mst. Rani Bibi (complainant) so as to conceal the guilt of her party, who badly tortured Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Nisar (petitioners); the injuries of the petitioners have been suppressed by the complainant of the F.I.R. Case with a view to withhold the factum of initiation of aggression by them; the Medical Board of Pakpattan Sharif re-examined the injuries of Noor Ahmad and after CT-Scan they found that Noor Ahmad had not received any fractural injury on his nose; lastly submits that it is a case of two versions and which version is correct, can only be seen by the trial Court after recording evidence of the parties at trial.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant opposes with the contention that the petitioners bring armed with different weapons launched aggression against the complainant party and caused multiple injuries on the bodies of Noor Ahmad and his son Subeh Sadiq; the story of cross-version is false and delayed by three days from the date of registration of the F.I.R.; the injuries of Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Nisar accused have been caused with friendly hands so as to build-up a cross-case; there exists no reason to believe that the petitioners have not committed a non-bailable offence.
6. Learned Addl: Prosecutor-General Punjab relies upon the submissions of learned counsel for the complainant and submits that recovery of weapons of offence is yet to be effected from the accused.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that Abdul Jabbar (petitioner) is the complainant of cross-case, which was recorded on 16-9-2012 by the Investigating Officer for offences under sections 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-F(v), 337-L(2), 34, P.P.C.
Against the husband of the complainant, namely Noor Ahmad and others. Muhammad Aslam (petitioner) and Muhammad Nisar (petitioner) are the injured P.Ws. Of the cross-case who received multiple injuries during the occurrence, which have been completely suppressed by the complainant of the F.I.R. Case. The MLR of Muhammad Aslam accused/petitioner reveals four blunt weapon injuries, one out of which Injury No.2 was declared Ghayr-Jaifah Hashimah (337-F(v), P.P.C.) by the Medical Officer, whereas, Muhammad Nisar accused/petitioner, as per his MLR received one sharp-edged-weapon-injury and two others by blunt weapon(s). Injury No.1 on his person was declared as Shajjah-i-Mudihah (337-A(ii), P.P.C.).
8. So far as the MLR of Noor Ahmad, the husband of the complainant, is concerned, it entails three blunt weapon injuries, one out of which, Injury No.1, was declared as Shajjah-i-Hashimah (337- A(iii)
P.P.C.) and the other, Injury No.2 was declared as Ghayr-Jaifah Hashimah (337-F(v) P.P.C.) by the first Medico-legal Officer, whereas, MLR of Subeh Sadiq, the son of the complainant disclosed two blunt weapon injuries which fell within the definition of section 337-L(2) P.P.C. The accused challenged theveracity of MLR of Noor Ahmad injured, as a result of which, his injuries were re- examined by the members of District Standing Medical / Board Pakpattan Sharif who, after conducting various tests including the CT-Scan, reversed the finding of the first Medico-legal Officer in respect of injury No.1 by declaring that no fracture was seen in the nasal bone. Hence, this particular injury falls within the definition of Shajjahi-Khafifah (337-A(i)P.P.C.). So far as Injury No.2, which showed fracture of left ulna, lower part, is concerned, it remained as such, even after its re- examination by the District Medical Board.
9. Apparently, there are two versions of the occurrence, alleged, which run parallel to each other.
The question regarding initiation, of aggression cannot be resolved at this stage and it would be determined by the learned trial Court, after recording evidence of the parties at trial. The injuries on the person of Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Nisar (petitioners) have been suppressed by the complainant and the Medico-legal Report of Noor Ahmad injured showed an element of dubiousness when his injuries were reexamined by the members of the District Standing Medical Board. The cross-case has stood the test of investigation and opinion formulated by the Investigating Officer, at present shows that the accused of the F.I.R. Case as well as that of the cross-case had participated in the occurrence, as alleged against them.
10. Insofar as the argument of the learned counsel for the complainant that recovery of crime weapons is still to be effected from the accused/petitioners therefore, they may not be granted the relief of bail before arrest, is not of much relevance as, by keeping in view the attending circumstances of the case discussed hereinabove. The petitioners cannot be sent to jail only to facilitate the police to recover some weapons from them, for such an objective could be achieved by an Investigating Officer through obtainment of a search warrant. To resort to such an exercise, the police have to equip themselves with the modern techniques of investigation, the professional dexterity and legal acumen, which they regrettably lack for a variety of reasons. I am of the considered view that the petitioners case constitutes need for further inquiry into their guilt as envisaged by section 497(2), Cr.P.C. And in such a situation it is an inherent right of the accused to be granted bail.
11. For the discussion supra, I accept this application and confirm ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners vide order dated 5-11-2012 subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.