Amjad Ali (petitioner) seeks bail after arrest in case FIR No, 251/2012, dated 14.08.2012. registered for offences under Sections 337- L(ii), 427, 337-A(ii), 337-A(i), 337-A(iii), 337-F(v), 337-F(iii), 337-F(ii), 148, 149, PPC, at Police Station Phelora (Sialkot).
2. Precisely, the prosecution case as narrated by Muhammad Akram (complainant) is that he cultivated agricultural land on lease, the owner whereof was Muhammad Javed; he along with his companions cultivated the land by means of a tractor at about 2/3:00 p.m. on 13.08.2012 when they were ambushed by accused Amjad Ali (petitioner) armed with hatchet and his 10 armed cronies; all the accused inflicted multiple injuries on the persons of Muhammad Jamil, Habib Ullah, Abbas Ali, Muhammad Siddique, Muhammad Hanif, besides himself; Amjad Ali accused-petitioner gave a hatchet blow on the head of Abbas Ali, followed by another blow by him of his weapon at right- hand of Abbas Ali; the accused also damaged his tractor and stole many articles from the place of occurrence; motive behind the occurrence pertained to a previous dispute/case between the parties, wherein he was a witness of the complainant-side.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is inordinate delay of 20 hours in lodgment of FIR, which has not been explained by the complainant in any manner; the petitioner's brother Ghazanfar also received injuries during the occurrence, which is corroborated by his medical certificate; it is a case of two versions as petitioner's father Muhammad Anwar got recorded cross- version/case on 06.09.2012 for offences under Sections 337-L(ii), 337-F(v), 337-F(iii). 337-A(i), 148, 149, PPC against the complainant party with a categorical assertion that the occurrence took place in his fields; the petitioner's case calls for further probe into his guilt, hence factum of his abscondence becomes irrelevant.
4. On the other hand, learned District Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposes with the contention that the cross-version got registered by father of the petitioner was found false vide case-diary dated 31.10.2012; the petitioner got recovered a hatchet on 23.12.2012; one of the injuries attributed to the petitioner caused fracture of skull of Abbas Ali, which falls within the mischief of Section 337-A(iii), PPC; the petitioner remained an absconder in this case and for this reason he has lost some of his normal rights guaranteed under the law; lastly submits that the petitioner has committed an offence which catches the prohibition of Section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that the parties have counter-claims, as to the place and mode of the alleged occurrence. Six persons namely Muhammad Jamil, Habib Ullah, Abbas Ali, Muhammad Siddique, Muhammad Hanif and Muhammad Akram (complainant) received injuries on the complainant side, whereas, one person Ghazanfar Ali, the petitioner's -brother received multiple injuries on his person including chip- fracture of proximal phalanx of thumb. In parallel to the FIR-case, a cross-version was set-up by Muhammad Anwar, father of the petitioner on 06.09.2012 against the complainant party for offences under Sections 337-F(v), 337- F(iii), 337-L(ii), 337-A(i), 148, 149, PPC, which stood its ground till 10.10.2012 when it was found fit-enough by the investigating officer for submission of challan against the accused mentioned therein, under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court. The Investigating Officer after having recorded statements of the injured/eye-witnesses on both the sides and having submitted challan under Section 173, Cr.P.C. acted queerly, as he recorded an arbitrary and capricious finding on 31.10.2012 as to the cancellation of cross-case by using term, for the time being cancelled". After submitting a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court, the Investigating Officer cannot venture into recording an akin finding. The injuries sustained by Ghazanfar have not been explained by the complainant. Regardless the alleged attributions against the petitioner it remains a fact that it is a case of two versions and which one of the theories is nearer to truth cannot be pointed out at this stage with certainty, which controversy would be resolved by the trial Court, after recording evidence of the parties at trial. The memo. of recovery prepared by the Investigating Officer does not reveal that the hatchet allegedly got recovered by the accused-petitioner was blood-stained. An element of obscurity hovers over the exact venue of occurrence and factum regarding initiation of aggression. To resolve this riddle an elaborate evaluation of the evidence is required which cannot be done at this stage. A case of two counter-versions arising from the same incident is certainly covered for grant of bail on the ground of further inquiry. Reliance is placed on case titled Shoaib Mehmood Butt Vs. Iftikhar-ul-Haq and 3 the's (1996 SCM R 1845), Mst.Shafigan Vs, Hashim Ali and another (1972 SCM R 682). The objection that the petitioner remained a fugitive from law and declared an absconder in the process may be a question of propriety which has to give way to a question of right of the accused, whose case requires further probe into his guilt, as defined by Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. A reference in this regard may be made to Ikram-ur-Haq's case, reported as 2012 SCM R 1273. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is no more required for the purpose of investigation, hence, his physical custody may be of no consequence to the prosecution's case
6. For the discussion supra, the instant application is allowed and petitioner is admitted to post- arrest-bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.