' ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J. --- Through this petition, Muhammad Khan petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in the case FIR No,. 838 registered at Police Station Baseerpur, District Okara on 25.12.2012 for offence under sections 337D/34, PPC. Section 324, PPC was subsequently added to the FIR.
2. As per FIR, the allegation against the petitioner is that brother of the complainant, namely, Allah Dltta was present in his fields and the petitioner came there and started abusing him for damaging the crops of the petitioner. Roshan Din, father of the petitioner, grappled Allah Ditta and Muhammad Khan stabbed him in the belly. Hence, this FIR.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner straightaway submits that the petitioner is ready to pay the Arsh amount of Rs, 7,24,859/-, if so ordered by this Court, as calculated by the Trial Court and places reliance upon the case of Ali Muhammad v. The State (PLD 2009 S.C. 312); that there is an unexplained delay of three days in lodging the FIR and that the FIR was not lodged by the victim; that the petitioner was also injured in the quarrel. Places reliance upon the case of Pervaiz Khan v.
The State (PLD 1998 Lahore 84) to argue that cavity in the belly is not the vital part of the body and prays for the grant of bail.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the complainant submits that the offence under section 324, PPC is attracted as the dagger blow was inflicted on the vital part of the body; that recovery of the dagger has been affected from the petitioner; that the charge was framed on 6.4.2013; that the matter was immediately reported to the police; that cross-version of the petitioner has been rejected by the police; that the Medical Board has agreed to the opinion of the first Medical Examiner; that Muhammad Shahbaz and Nazir Ahmad eye-witnesses have fully supported the prosecution; the mode and manner, in which the offence was committed, is to be taken into consideration and places reliance upon the case of Zia v. State and another (PLJ 2008, Cr.C.
(Peshawar) 680) and prays for dismissal of the bail petition.
5. The learned Additional Prosecutor-General adopts the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record.
7. Although the petitioner is nominated in the FIR with a specific role of causing a stab wound on the belly of the victim yet a report was sought on 19.7.2013 from the Trial Court for determination of the amount of Arsh, which repot has been submitted, in which the amount of Arsh has been calculated as Rs, 7,24,859/-. In the judgment cited as Ali Muhammad v. The State (PLD 2009 S.C.
312), a Full Bench of this Court has observed that in all cases of hurt, the normal punishment to be awarded to an offender is payment of Arsh or Daman and the optional additional punishment of imprisonment provided for the relevant offence can be awarded to an offender only where the offender is a previous convict, habitual or hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal or the offence has been committed by him in the name or on the pretext of honour, as determined under section 337-N(2), PPC. Paragraph No,. 33(i) of the judgment is relevant, which is reproduced as under: "At the time of hearing of an application for post-arrest bail in a case of hurt where the accused person is not a previous convict, habitual or hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal or where the offence has not been committed by him in the name or on the pretext of honour if the accused person offers to deposit the requisite amount of Arsh or Daman with the Trial Court in order to secure the relevant amount of money due as punishment in case of his ultimate conviction, if any, and if the period of his physical remand is over and the statutory period of investigation has expired then ordinarily he should be admitted to bail subject to making of the requisite deposit and furnishing of bail bond. Such a bargain shall, however, not be available to an accused person for his post-arrest bail if he is a previous convict or in the tentative assessment of the Court he is a habitual or hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal or where the offence has been committed by him in the name or on the pretext of honour."
' The observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Haji Maa Din and another v. The State and another (1998 SCMR 1528) is also relevant, which is reproduced hereunder: "The second question need not be gone into in his case as this being a bail matter, it is sufficient to refer to section 337-N(2), PPC which provides, amongst others, the cases/circumstances in which punishment of imprisonment is to be awarded as Ta'zir. The factors to be seen for awarding Ta'zir punishment are the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the injury/hurt caused, the weapon used and the brutal or shocking manner in which the offence has been committed which is outrageous to be public conscience or adversely affects harmony among different sections of the people."
8. The argument of the learned counsel for the complainant that as the offence under Section 324, PPC is attracted, therefore, such benefit cannot be extended, is not tenable as the charge was framed only under section 337-D, PPC. Even the investigation so conducted by the police in offence under section 337-D, PPC has not been challenged by the complainant. Admittedly, there was a scuffle and exchange of hot words between Allah Ditta injured and the petitioner over the destruction of crop of the complainant by the petitioner. As per report of the learned Sessions Judge, Okara, the amount of Arsh for an offence under section 377D, PPC is determined as Rs, 7,24,859/-, which amount although has not been accepted by the complainant yet there is no conditionality for such acceptance for the grant of post-arrest bail.
9. In this view of the matter, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to deposit of Arsh amounting to Rs, 7,24,859/- before the Trial Court for the injured Allah Ditta and also furnishing of bail bond in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
Bail after arrest granted.