ABDUL RASOOL MEMON, J.---Applicants Namely Sultan, Ramzan, Barad, Ghafoor, Jawaid, Atta Mohammad and Sheedo seek pre-arrest bail in Crime No,21 of 2016, under sections 324, 506/2, 147, 148, 149, 114, 504, 452, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Mirpur Sakro, District Thatta. Earlier bail plea of the present applicants was declined by Sessions Judge Thatta in Criminal Bail Application No,170 of 2016 vide order dated 31.03.2016.
2. The applicants were admitted to interim pre-arrest bail vide order dated 21.04.2016 by this Court and today the matter is fixed for confirmation ' or otherwise.
3. Complainant Wali Mohammad Khero recorded FIR on 02.03.2016 at 1800 hours stating therein that his brother Juman purchased 30 acres of agricultural land from one Urs in 1991 and same was transferred in their name. It is alleged that Sultan son of Suleman made forgery in the record of rights and the complainant party filed civil suit in the Court of Senior Civil Judge Thatta, thereafter the matter was amicably settled, thus the said suit was withdrawn by the complainant. It is alleged that in 2015 Sultan and others again made attempts to encroach upon the land of the complainant but they filed civil suit in the Court of Senior Civil Judge Thatta which is still subjudice.
4. On 24.01.2016, complainant along with his relatives Ahmed, Uris, Nazeer, Aziz were available at their house at about 1200 hours, the accused persons namely Sultan, Soomar, Ramzan, Hassan, Ramzan, Chanesar, Barrad, Wahid, Hashoo, Ghafoor, Saleem, Wali, Allah Dino, Jawaid, Bachayo, Ghafoor, Atta Mohammad and Sheedo, all by caste Kheero attacked upon them. Accused Barrad caused hatchet blows to complainant, accused Sultan caused hatchet blows at the head of Ahmed while accused Ramzan caused hatchet blows at the arm of said Ahmed. Accused Ghafoor gave hatchet blow to P.W. Nazeer and accused Jawaid caused hatchet blows to P.W. Nazeer, Accused Ghafoor, Sheedo, Attah Mohammad caused hatchet blows to P.W. Aziz and thereafter the complainant party made hue and cry upon which the accused persons went away.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that there is delay in lodging the FIR for 36 days, which has not been plausibly explained; that no name of any of the accused is mentioned in daily diary registered on the very day at police station whereby the injured were referred through letter to Medical Officer; that non-mentioning the name of the accused in the daily diary recorded on the very day of incident gives presumption to the consultation, mediation and false implication of the present applicant; that the co-accused Sultan has also recorded the FIR against P.Ws. complainant and three others as crime No,23 of 2016 at same police station wherein place and time of incident is same wherein accused Barrad, Abdul Razzaq and Mohammad Bux have been shown to have sustained injuries; that the accused in counter case have been granted post arrest bail by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Thatta; that who is aggressor and who has been aggressed is to be determined at trial; that enmity is admitted in the FIR, therefore, false implication and mala fide on the part of the complainant cannot be ruled out; that after grant of interim pre-arrest bail the applicants are all along attending the Court and never misused the concession of bail, therefore, he prays for confirmation of the bail to the applicants. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance on the cases i,e, Muhammad Zahid Umar v. The State and others (2016 SCM R 1246), Muhammad Boota v. The State and others (2014 SCM R 1355), Munir Masih and 3 others v. The State and others (2014 YLR 1159), Abdul Khalique and another v. The State (2013 YLR 1450) and Syed Darbar All Shah and others v. The State (2015 SCM R 879).
6. The complainant had appeared before this Court on 30th November, 2016 and stated that he cannot engage a private counsel and reposed his confidence upon the learned APG.
7. Learned APG in rebuttal submitted though there is enmity between the parties but in this case four persons have sustained injuries. While he was confronted regarding registration of FIR by the accused Sultan against the complainant party being crime No,23 of 2016 at the same police station showing the same time and place of incident wherein also four persons have sustained injuries. He frankly submits that it seems that this case is of two versions wherein both the parties are alleging aggression against each other, who is aggressor and who has been aggressed is to be determined at trial. In cross case co-accused namely Imam Bux, Anwar, Wali Muhammad, Nazeer and Sultan have been admitted to bail by lInd Additional Sessions Judge, Thatta hence, the present applicants are also entitled to the same treatment, therefore, he has recorded no objection to the confirmation of bail to the applicants.
8. It has come on record that there is delay in lodging the FIR for 36 days. No explanation has been offered in the FIR for such a long delay. It is a matter of record that applicant No,1 Sultan has also registered FIR wherein it has been alleged that complainant party while armed with deadly weapons attacked upon them and in the result three persons namely Barrad, Abdul Razzak and Muhammad Bux have A sustained injuries, their medical certificates are also placed on record and Medical Officer in his final medical certificate has declared those injuries falling under sections 337-F(vi) and L(2). While the injuries in the present case sustained by the injured Nazeer, Ahmed, Wali and Aziz are also opined by the Medical Officer falling under sections 337-F(vi) and L(2). In the above circumstances the injuries sustained in both the cases by the injured persons are punishable upto seven (07) years and does not come within the prohibitory clause of section 497.
Both the parties had given their own version in a manner in which the incident took place. Thus the suppression of real facts of both parties could not be ruled out and after recording evidence the trial Court has to evaluate the same and see which party was the aggressor and who was aggressed upon. In such circumstances involvement of the applicant in the commission of alleged offence requires further inquiry. The strained relations over property dispute are even admitted in the contents of FIR therefore allegation of mala fide on the part of complainant cannot be ruled out.
9. In view of the above circumstances and no objection recorded by learned APG on behalf of the state the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicants is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions on which they were admitted to interim pre-arrest bail.
The bail application stands disposed of accordingly.