' The petitioner namely Muhammad Raashid seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.29, dated 15.01.2014, registered under Sections 302/324, 337-F(i), 337-F(iii), 337-F(vi)/148, 149, P.P.C., read with Section 7-ATA, 1997 at Police Station Gawalmandi, Lahore.
2. The facts, as per FIR are that on 14.01.2014 at about 11;30 p.m. When Ghulam Hussain complainant, along with his brother-in-law, Khalil Ahmad PW, nephews Suleman Ali (deceased), Saad Ali (injured PW) and maternal nieces namely Muskan and Erum (injured PWs) came at Gawalmandi Chowk to see illumination on the eve of Eid Meelad-ulNabi and stopped at the milk and yogurt shop of Raashid Gujjar (petitioner) to drink milk; in the meanwhile Messrs Farid Gujjar, Hamid alias Dora Gujjar, Kaka alias Saghar, Waseem alias Bahadar, Azeem alias Kag and two unknown accused, all armed with pistols, while raising Lalkaras reached there; on seeing them Raashid Gujjar (petitioner), opened direct firing with his pistol at the attackers and in return, Farid Gujjar etc. Also started firing; the fire shots made by Farid Gujjar hit Suleman Ali, the nephew of the complainant at backside of left shoulder and right thigh who got injured and fell down; due to indiscriminate firing from both the sides, Saad Ali, Erum, Muskan as well as many others sustained the injuries; the injured were shifted to Mayo Hospital, Lahore, where Suleman Ali succumbed to the injuries.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely roped with mala fide; during the occurrence the petitioner received fire shot injuries at the hands of the opposite party and became seriously injured; neither in the FIR nor in the statements of the injured PWs it was mentioned that minor Naseaha had also sustained the injuryies but with the mala fide, statements of the above named girl as well as that of her father Muhammad Shahzad Butt were concocted on the third day of the occurrence, just to falsely rope the petitioner in the case; the complainant as well as the injured PWs and Khalil Ahmad an eye-witness have sworn the affidavits, whereby they-all exonerated the petitioner.
4. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by the learned counsel for Mst. Naseaha injured has vehemently opposed the petition.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record it is observed that in the FIR only indiscriminate firing was attributed to the petitioner. It was alleged that due to the firing made from both the sides, the above named PWs had sustained the injuries, whereas Suleman Ali lost his life due to the injuries caused by Farid Gujjar. It is also noted that the petitioner was alone at his shop, when his A rival party consisting of five nominated and two unknown persons attacked him.
Due to firing of the opposite party, the petitioner sustained as many as seven fire shot injuries, one out of which was Jurh Jaifah, punishable under Section 337-D, P.P.C. It would be seen and determined during the trial if the petitioner, while making return- firing had committed any offence or not.
6. In the FIR it is not mentioned if baby Naseaha or her father Muhammad Shahzad Butt were present at the spot or she had sustained any injury during the occurrence. On the third day of the alleged occurrence i.e., on 16.01.2014 statements of the above named persons were recorded, whereby they stated that injury at the foot of baby Naseaha was inflicted by the petitioner. When indiscriminate firing was being made from both the sides, how come the above named girl and her father noticed that the injury to the minor girl had been caused by the petitioner? It seems as if above named witnesses have been purposely introduced to falsely involve the petitioner in this case. The bail declining order passed by the learned trial court reveals that Ghulam Hussain- complainant, Khalil Ahmad, an eyewitness, Saad Ali, Muskan and Erum, the injured PWs tendered sworn affidavits before the police, whereby they exonerated the petitioner from the alleged act of firing with the addition that it was he who received injuries at the hands of attacking party. Learned trial court, however, did not give any importance to the said affidavits and observed that baby Naseaha still blamed the accused-petitioner qua firearm injuries on her foot. Copies of the mentioned affidavits are available on the record, the presentation of the original thereof before the police has been admitted by both the sides. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that regarding the alleged occurrence, the father of the petitioner has filed a private complaint under Sections 302/324,337-F(i),337-F(iii),337-F(vi), P.P.C. And section 7 of ATA, in which all the respondents-accused who attacked the petitioner have been summoned and charge sheeted.
The other side has not rebutted the said fact. It is certainly a case of two versions. The correct one can only be hinted at and pointed to during the course of the trial.
7. All the above mentioned facts, in our view, have rendered the petitioner's case one of further inquiry, entitling him to the concession of bail. Resultantly, the petition in hand is accepted and ad- interim pre-arrest bail granted to him on 05.05.2014 is confirmed subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.