ABDUL LATIF KHAN, J:- Petitioner Abdul Basit seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No.705 dated 08.10.2014, registered u/s 302 PPC, at P.S. Takht Bhai, Mardan.
2. As per prosecution case, complainant Riaz Ahmad alongwith his sons Falak Sher, Hassan Khan, Atta Ullah were present on the spot when in the meanwhile petitioner duly armed with dagger (Pesh Qabaz) came there, started abusing his son Falak Sher and also started stabbing him as a result of which Falak Sher sustained injuries who while shifting to the hospital succumbed to his injuries. Consequently on the basis of his report instant FIR was registered against the petitioner.
3. It is pertinent to mention that another criminal case of same incident vide FIR No.729 dated 8.10.2014 u/s 337-A(ii) PPC was also registered at P.S. Takht Bhai, Mardan, on the report of present petitioner Basit, wherein he charged the deceased Falak Sher, complainant alongwith eye witnesses of instant case, for causing injuries to him.
Arguments heard record perused.
4. Perusal of record reveals that the time of occurrence and report of both the criminal cases are same i.e. 15.05 hours date of occurrence while 15.15 hours have been mentioned the time of report in both the cases, which shows that both the cases are cross cases, duly supported by site plan of both the cases wherein the place of occurrence has been mentioned one and same therefore, in case of counter-versions arising from the same incident, one given by complainant in FIR and the other given by the opposite party, it is almost settled that such cases are covered for grant of bail on the ground of further enquiry as contemplated u/s 497(2) Cr.PC and bail is normally granted on the ground of further enquiry for the reason that the question as to which version is correct is to be decided by the trial Court which is supposed to record evidence and also appraise the same in order to come to a final conclusion in this regard. In cases of counter versions, normally, plea of private defence is taken giving rise to question as to which party has acted in aggression and which party is an aggressed one, which could better be determined at trial after recording prosecution evidence.
5. The petitioner has sustained three injuries on his body for which he charged deceased Falak Sher, complainant and eye witnesses of the instant cases in the referred cross case which is duly supported by the medico legal report of cross case. Besides, petitioner has been charged by complainant for giving blows (guzarat) to the deceased but as per Post Mortem report, the deceased has received only one injury which negates the version of complainant by mentioning that the petitioner gave dagger blows(more than one blow) to the deceased. It is also very strange that four persons including the complainant and deceased were present on the spot and the petitioner came there gave dagger blows to the deceased while the complainant and eye witnesses were watching the scene and did nothing to save the decease or to overpower the petitioner who was having only a dagger in his hand having no companion while on the other hand three persons though empty handed could not do anything for overpowering the petitioner which is not appealable to a prudent mind which makes the case of petitioner that of further inquiry u/s 497(2) Cr.PC.
6. The petitioner despite remaining in police custody has made no confession before the competent Court nor any weapon of offence has been recovered from his possession or at his instance and pointation. It is also not clear as to who was aggressor and who was aggressed upon which make the prosecution case that of further inquiry. Besides, petitioner is behind the bar since his arrest and no more required to the local police for further investigation therefore keeping him behind the bar would serve no useful purpose.
7. In view of what has been observed above, this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court concerned who shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means.