' Petitioner alongwith four others is accused of offence under section 325/149 and 148, P.P.C. It is alleged that petitioner caused one Dang blow to Muhammad Amin resulting in dislocation of a tooth. Other injuries were also caused to Muhammad Amin by co-accused of the petitioner and two injuries to Muhammad Ayyub including one grievous with blunt weapon were attributed to co- accused of the petitioner.
2. In respect of an occurrence which took place on 18-5-1983 at 11-30 a.m. Liaqat Ali petitioner got registered an F.I.R. On 24-5-1983 at police Station Leiah for offence under section 326/430/149 and 148, P.P.C. Against Muhammad Amin and four others for six injuries including one grievous to P.W.
Muhammad Ibrahim son of Roshan Din and two simple blunt injuries to Liaqat Ali petitioner. During investigation police recorded statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Of Muhammad Amin son of Rehmatullah on 27-5-1983, and on the basis of medical certificate produced by him in respect of Muhammad Amin himself and Muhammad Ayub of his party police made Liaqat All petitioner and four others of his party as accused. Four co-accused of the petitioner have already been allowed bail. Petitioner was refused anticipatory bail because he was attributed grievous injury resulting in dislocation of a tooth of Muhammad Amin.
3. It has been argued before me that although Muhammad 'Amin was medically examined on 18- 5-1983 alongwith the other injured persons of the party of Liaqat Ali petitioner they did not attempt to get F.I.R. Registered and their version was recorded by the police as late as 27-5-1983 and that the injury of dislocation of a tooth of Muhammad Amin is self suffered. It has also been submitted that it was the turn of water of Liaqat Ali petitioner and theft of his water has been committed by the accused named in the F.I.R. Who further attacked the complainant in which Liaqat Ali petitioner himself and Muhammad Ibrahim sonof Roshan Din suffered injuries. The bail has been opposed by the learned counsel for the State.
4. Petitioner was a complainant in the F.I.R. According to which theft of his water has been committed by the accused party. The case against petitioner is under section 325 P.P.C. Which his not punishable with more than seven years rigorous imprisonment. In the circumstances of this case the case against petitioner is of further inquiry covered by section 497(2) Cr.P.C. Therefore, interim bail allowed to the petitioner by this Court on 20-6-1983 is confirmed against the same bail bonds.