Through this application the petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in case FIR No, 335/2018 dated 10.7.2018 registered at Police Station Karor , District Layyah, for offences under Sections 337-A(i)/337- A(ii)/337-L( 2 )/337-F(v)/337- F(vi)/440/148/149, PPC.
2. Briefly , the prosecution case is that on 9.7.2018 at about 7.00 p.m. the Petition ers and their co-accused while armed with different weapons formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object assaulted the complainant party and caused them injuries.
3. Arguments heard. Record persued.
4. The specific allegation against Petitioner No, 1 (Muhammad Tariq) is that he gave sota blow to Mazhar Abbas on his left elbow and Qaiser Abbas on his left hand while Petitioner No, 2 (Allah Bakhsh) gave a sota blow to Ashiq Hussain on his nose. No role has been ascribed to Petitioner No, 3 (Fayyaz Hussa in alias Lali). On the other hand, Petitioner No, 4 (Ejaz Ahmad) is accused of having whacked Mazhar Abbas on his left thumb and Petitioner No, 5 (Fida Hussain) of having given hatchet blows to Mazhar Abbas and Ashiq Hussain on their heads. Petitioner No, 6 (Tanveer Hussain) is assigned the orle of striking Mazhar Abbas and Qaiser Abbas on their back and right arms respectively with a sota. A wade through the police file reveals that the medical evidence does not fully support the ocular account. Even otherwise, this is a case of two versions. Five persons from the Complainant's side were also injured in the occurrence. Mst. Akhtar Bibi wife of Petitioner No, 2 lodged cross-ver sion in this respect claiming that the other side was the aggressor . The question as to which version is correct would be determined by the learned trial Court after recording evidence. This makes the case of the petitioners one of further inquiry . Possibiliy of false implication cannot be ruled out. In "Shoaib Mehmood Butt v. Iftikhar -ul-Haq and 3 others " (1996 SCMR 1845 ), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan held: "In case of counter-version arising from the same incident, one given by Complainant in FIR and the other given by the opposite-party case-law is almost settled that such cases are covered for grant of bail on the ground of further enquiry as contemplated under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. In such cases normally , bail is 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."
The above view was reiterated in "Ghulam Abbas u. the State and others" ( 2016 SCMR 2048 ).
5. For what has been discussed above, this application is allowed. Ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners is confirmed subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 200,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.