Nauroze Masih petitioner has moved this petition for bail in a case registered against him, his brother and father under section 326/34, P.P.C.
The prosecution version is that on 3-8-1985 at about evening time the petitioner armed with a hatchet, his brother with a Chhuri and his father with a Sots confronted Shabbir Masih near the house of Barkat Masih, upon which he raised alarm attracting Feroze Masih complainant and Nazir Masih. They tried to rescue Shabbir Masih, upon which Nauroze Masih petitioner gave a hatchet blow to Nazir Masih which landed on his head. In the meantime, Mst. Ferozan Bibi also reached the spot. The co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Shafi Masih and Rozveld, injured her with their weapons.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is an unexplained delay of two days in lodging the F.I.R. And the injury attributed to the petitioner is simple in nature as the cut was not through and through, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail. Reliance is placed on Nasim v. State 1970 P Cr. L J 674. The learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail.
3. I have gone through the relevant material. The occurrence took place on 3-8-1985 at about evening time and the F.I.R. Was lodged on 5-8-1985 at 7.30 p.m, No explanation has been offered for this delay. The medico-legal examination of Nazar Masih injured revealed an incised wound on the left parietal region, On the basis of X-ray examination, this injury was declared grievous as a "cut line" was seen in X-ray. The medico-legal evidence does not show that the cut was through and through or there was a fracture under the injury. Prima facie, the contention of the learned counsel has sufficient force. Accordingly, the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Sialkot.