' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---The petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,269 of 2012 dated 5- 8-2012, under sections 324/ 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-F(ii)/34 P.P.C., section 302 P.P.C. (added during investigation) registered at Police Station, Langrana (Chiniot).
2. Precisely, the prosecution case as narrated by Shahadat (complainant) is that he moved towards 'Dhari' of his father-in-law at 'Deegarvela' on 3-8-2012; Mujahid, Shamas-ul-Haq and Noor Muhammad were grazing animals at that time; in the meanwhile, accused Mehdi (petitioner) armed with double-barrel gun, Mapal armed with single-barrel gun, Riaz armed with sota and Niamat Bibi armed with hatchet, reached there and launched an attack; Mehdi (petitioner) raised lalkara and fired with his gun at Shamas-ul-Haq, but it went missing, followed by another fire shot by him, which landed at abdomen of Mujahid; Mapal, Niamat Bibi and Riaz accused caused injuries to him, Shamas-ul-Haq and Noor Muhammad by means of their respective weapons; Mehdi (petitioner) and Mapal made indiscriminate firing but he and others ran to save their lives. The motive behind the occurrence pertained to a previous occurrence, involving abduction of Mst.
Kubra Bibi daughter of Riaz accused by Shams-ul-Haq.
3. The ill-fated injured Mujahid, could not survive and he succumbed to the injuries at a hospital on 9-8-2012, which resulted in addition of section 302 P.P.C.
4. It will be advantageous to give a brief account of another case pertaining to the same occurrence which was got registered by Riaz Hussain accused on 4-8-2012 vide F.I.R. No,267/12 under sections 324, 337-F(i), 337-A(ii), 337-L(ii), 148/149 P.P.C. At Police Station, Langrana District Chiniot with the contention that he and his son Mehdi Hassan were cutting fodder for their animals at about 4 p.m, on 3-8-2012 from their fields, when accused Shatnas-ul-Haq armed with 12 bore gun, Mujahid armed with hatchet, Shamas-ul-Haq, Noor Muhammad and Ameer armed with sotas, reached, there and started showering abuses upon them; Shamas-ul-Haq raised lalkara and fired with his gun which landed at his left hand, followed by multiple blows of their weapons by accused Sameer, Noor Muhammad and Ameer, which landed on different parts of his body; Mujahid gave repeated blows of hatched on left shoulder and head of his son Mehdi Hassan; the fire shot made by Shamas-ul-Haq, accused did not hit Mehdi Hassan and instead landed at the body of Mujahid; on arrival of the witnesses and co-villagers, the accused fled the spot. The motive behind the occurrence pertained to a previous dispute between the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged occurrence took place in the fields of the petitioner and it was the complainant party, which launched aggression against him and his father, who reported the matter to the police on 4-8-2012 through an independent F.I.R. Wherein he alleged that Shamas-ul-Haq etc. Being armed with different weapons launched aggression and caused injuries to him and his son Mehdi (petitioner), who were medically examined through police which fact is proved from their medico-legal certificates; the Investigating Officer did not conduct the investigation honestly and he declared all the accused of case F.I.R. No,267 of 2012 supra innocent, therefore, the petitioner's father filed a private complaint, wherein Shamas-ul-Haq etc. Have been summoned to face trial. It is a case of two versions and one, which is true, can only be determined by the trial court during trial; the petitioner's case calls for further probe into his guilt, within the meaning of section 497(2) Cr.P.C, therefore, he may be granted bail, as prayed for. He has placed reliance on Noor Muhammad v. The State (2009 SCM R 324).
6. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposes by contending that the F.I.R. Got lodged by Riaz was found false during the course of investigation and all the accused mentioned therein were found innocent; the medical board opined that injuries allegedly sustained by Mehdi Hassan (petitioner) and his father were fabricated; the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. With a specific role of causing fatal injury to the deceased, Mujahid; the petitioner led to the recovery of .12 bore gun during physical remand on 27- 8-2012; the challan submitted by the investigating officer in cross F.I.R. Case shows that all the accused have been placed in column 2 thereof; the petitioner and his co-accused have been indicted by the trial court and case is fixed for recording evidence; one P.W. Has been recorded by the trial court which has not been cross-examined by the accused as yet.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record it is observed that two separate F.I.Rs,, one by petitioner's father and the other by Shahadat, in respect to the same incident, were registered by the police, containing respective versions of the warring-parties. The F.I.R. Registered on the petitioner's side is prior in date and time, rather it was recorded on the following day of the alleged occurrence and the other F.I.R., wherein the petitioner seeks relief of bail, was recorded a day thereafter. It appears from the record that it was the complainant party, which went to the site of occurrence, where the petitioner and his companions were cutting fodder for their animals. The complainant, Shahadat has not. Specifically mentioned about the hot-spot in the F.I.R., which appears to have been so done by him purposely. The petitioner and his father received multiple injuries during the occurrence which fact is evident from their medical certificates, obtained by the police on the very day of the alleged occurrence. Riaz Hussain accused received six injuries, one out of which, injury No,4, was a firearm-wound and rest was the blunt trauma. The petitioner received two injuries, one by a sharp edged weapon and the other by blunt means. Though, the accused of case-F.I.R. No,267/2012 supra have been declared innocent by the police during the course of investigation and placed in column No,2 of the challan, yet in a private complaint-case, filed by petitioner's father, all the respondents-accused have been summoned by the trial court to stand trial. The petitioner has been burdened by the complainant with the liability of authoring fatal injury to the deceased through his double-barrel gun still, keeping in view the attending circumstances of this case, it could not be said that the occurrence alleged was premeditated or pre-concerted. It is definitely a case of two versions, wherein question regarding initiation of aggression can only be resolved by the trial court after recording evidence of the parties at trial. The recovery of 12 bore gun, at the instance of the petitioner, on 29-8-2012 may not be of much relevance at this stage as, investigating officer failed to collect any crime empty during spot inspection. In an identical situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, while dealing with Noor Muhammad's plea for bail observed in 2009 SCM R 324 that it was yet to be determined as to "which of the ar was the a ressor and whether ca p ital p unishment or that o imprisonment for life could be awarded in the circumstances" and granted post arrest bail to the said accused, who had allegedly inflicted fatal injury to the deceased.
8. All the co-accused of the petitioner have been granted bail and none of the accused of case F.I.R. No,267 of 2012 supra is incarcerated either, therefore, the petitioner who is behind the bars since 26-8-2012, is entitled to relief of post arrest bail, considering his case to be one of further inquiry, falling within the definition of section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
9. Therefore, the instant application is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,5,00,000 (Rupees five lac only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.