The petitioner seeks bail after arrest in a cross case recorded on 17.07.2012 for offences under Sections 337-F(i), 337-A(i), 337-L(ii), 342, 381-A, 379, 148, 149, PPC, during the course of investigation of case FIR No, 218, dated 12.07.2012, under Sections 337-F (v), 148, 149, PPC, - registered at Police Station Saddar Chunian, District Kasur.
2. Precisely the story of cross case as narrated by Muhammad Ashiq (complainant) is. that Pervaiz (petitioner) armed with pistol .30 bore along with his armed companions ambushed his grandson Sajid and caused him multiple blunt-weapon-injuries besides firing at him ineffectively, in the background of previous litigation between them; the accused snatched motorcycle from Sajid and commanded him to call his rescuers whereon he telephonically informed his brother and other relatives who reached the place of occurrence to rescue him; the accused party as named above was re-enforced due to arrival of their co-accused, Hanif, Latif, Iftikhar, Abdul Hafeez and Asif, five in number, all armed with different weapons; another clash took place between the parties during the course of which Pervaiz (petitioner) hurled the butt of his pistol on the head of Liaqat Ali whereas his co-accused also caused him injuries; the accused forcibly took Manzoor Ahmad to the house of Sabir where they mercilessly tortured him; the accused also snatched an amount of cash Rs,5000/- from Sajid.
3. So far as the story of FIR as narrated by Abdul Hafeez is concerned, it relates to the fact that accused Salamat Ali, Niamat Ali, Ashiq, Manzoor, Sajid, Sharif, Maula, Liaqat and Saleem along with three unknown companions gathered outside the house of his brother and hurled naked abuses whereon Muhammad Sabir came out of his house to inquire about the situation and immediately found himself in trouble as all the accused pounced upon him with their respective weapons; Manzoor accused fired a shot which landed at his abdomen, on its right side, while, a fire shot made by Salamat accused also landed at his abdomen; accused Ashiq gave a sota blow on the left arm of Muhammad Hanif and caused him a fractural injury; accused Niamat .Ali and Liaqat Ali made aerial firing with their weapons and other accused who too were armed with different weapons raised lalkaras.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a case of two versions and the one, being true, can only be assessed by the trial Court after recording evidence of the parties at trial; the injury attributed to the petitioner falls within the definition of Section 337- A(ii), PPC which is punishable with five years imprisonment; the petitioner's case calls for further probe into his guilt, therefore, he may be granted the relief prayed for.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant opposes by contending that the petitioner is specifically named in the cross case and he actively participated in the occurrence during the comp of which he authored an injury on the vital part of the body of Liaqat Ali injured; the accused also snatched motorcycle and, cash Rs,5000/- from Sajid; lastly submits that the accused party was found aggressor during the course of investigation.
6. Learned APG endorses the submissions of learned counsel for the complainant with the addition that the I.O. has filed two separate challans in the FIR case and in the cross case.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that it is a case of two versions, one relating to the FIR-case and the other to the cross-case. Five persons received multiple injuries from the complainant side whereas two persons got injured on the accused side. The injury allegedly inflicted by the petitioner was declared Shajjah-i-Mudihah (337- A(ii), PPC) which is punishable with five years imprisonment and does not catch the prohibition of Section 497(1), Cr.P.C. It has been held time and again by this Court that in a case of two versions, the I.O. should not arrogate himself to formulate an opinion as to the initiation of aggression by a particular party and this question should be left for the trial Court to deal with at the time of trial, After submission of challan, further incarceration of the petitioner would be of no consequence to the prosecution case. Therefore, I am inclined to accept this application which is so done accordingly. The 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.