' MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.---This is a bail petition for grant of bail facility to the petitioner in connection with occurrence reported through FIR No,5/2015 and FIR No,08/2015 of Police Station Nagar.
2. Petitioner, who is involved for the offences of sections 336, 337-A, 324 and 354, P.P.C., booked through FIR No, 06/2015 dated 07-06-2015 and offence of section 13 of Arms Ordinance of FIR No,08/2015 dated 15-06-2015, of Police Station Nagar, seeks his release on bail through this petition.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner stated at bar that petitioner has been released on bail in connection with occurrence of FIR No, 08/2015 Police Station Nagar-1 and mention of the said FIR in the petition is result of mistake. Therefore, hereunder I am taking up the grounds and circumstances of the bail petition, containing myself to the grounds and circumstances of the occurrence reported through FIR No, 06/2015 of Police Station Nagar-I and hereunder petitioner means, the petitioner but to the extent of FIR No, 06/2015 of Police Station Nagar. The addition of offence of section 13 of Arms Ordinance and mention of FIR No, 08/2015 in the petition, be deemed as expunged.
4. The prosecution story of the occurrence is that, at about 7:50 p.m. Petitioner came to his home and picked up a quarrel with his wife, who is mother of the complainant. Petitioner is father of the complainant. Petitioner used different weapons for inflicting injuries to the mother of complainant.
Police chalked FIR in the light of written application of the complainant. So far, police has admittedly filed challan of the case and trial of the case has commenced.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that in the light of Medical Report, the injuries caused to mother of the complainant are simple, therefore the offences of any clause of sections 337, P.P.C.
Or 336, P.P.C. Do not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. In the opinion of learned counsel for petitioner offence of section 354, P.P.C. Does not attract as the victim. Of occurrence is wife of the petitioner. Offence of section 336, P.P.C. Does not attract as in the light of Medical Report no organ of the victim of occurrence has been removed as a result of the occurrence. On the other hand learned counsel for complainant and learned Deputy Advocate General argued that, as a result of the occurrence a lip of the victim of occurrence has been disfigured and petitioner has attempted to murder the victim of occurrence.
6. I have thoughtfully considered arguments of the learned counsel for parties and have gone through the material available on file. Learned counsel for complainant and learned D.A.G. Frankly admitted that the medical report shows simple injuries to the victim of occurrence. This very fact shows that the question of attraction of offences of sections 337 and 336, P.P.C. Is a question of further inquiry. It is not disputed that victim of occurrence is wife of the petitioner, therefore, attraction of offence of 354, P.P.C. Is also a question of further inquiry. The question of attempted murder is also a question of further inquiry, because from plain perusal of contents of FIR, it is evident that the occurrence has happened in the home of petitioner and is patently result of a very petty dispute between the home-mates of petitioner and the petitioner himself. So, at this stage of the case, from tentative assessm ent of the available prosecution evidence, the trial Court is yet to determine that whether the occurrence has happened at the spur of moments or is perpetrated.
7. In sequel of above discussion, I allow this petition and direct for immediate release of the petitioner on bail, if not required in any other A case, but that also subject to his furnishing personal bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with at least one surety in the like amount to satisfaction of any Judicial Magistrate at Gilgit or Hunza-Nagar. This file be consigned to record.