Jumma respondent and his father Ibrahim came to Multan to participate in the marriage of sister's daughter of Muhammad Yousaf petitioner. Over the payment of 'Naindra' Muhammad Ramzan son of the petitioner and Ibrahim father of the respondent started abusing each other. Upon this Jumma respondent whipped out a knife from his pocket and gave with it an injury into the abdomen of Muhammad Ramzan which was later-on declared to be dangerous to life.
Muhammad Ramzan was hospitalised for about two weeks. A case under section 307 read with section 34, P.P.C. Was registered against Jumma respondent and his father Ibrahim at the instance of the petitioner. Ibrahim was admitted to bail by the Ilaqa Magistrate because a proverbial role of 'Japha' was attributed to him. However, Jumma respondent's plea for bail was declined and, therefore, he approached the Court of Sessions, where he succeeded and was admitted to bail on 17-3-1982 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, who had held, that the incident had taken place all of a sudden, in the heat of passions and without any premeditation. He further held that it was a case of further inquiry as if an offence under section 307/34, P.P.C. Was constituted or not? It appears from the tenor of the order that it was argued before him on behalf of Jumma respondent that the case squarely fell within the purview of section 308/34, P.P.C.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that since the weapon used was a knife and Jumma respondent selected vital part of Muhammad Ramzan P.W. For inflicting the injury, therefore, he intended to cause the death of Muhammad Ramzan. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposed the petition saying that the discretion exercised by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be termed to be capricious and fanciful, and the order of bail should not be interfered with.
3. 'I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for bath the parties and. Find that there was an exchange of abuses between Muhammad Ramzan injured P.W. And father of Jumma respondent and in that row Jumma respondent having suddenly flared up caused an injury to Muhammad Ramzan in his abdomen. It is admitted before me that he did not repeat the blow. In these circumstances, I find that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in holding that it was a matter of further inquiry as to whether an offence under section 307/34, P.P.C. Or under section 308/34, P.P.C had been committed? The exercise of the discretion in favour of the petitioner is unexceptionable.
4. For what has been said above, I do not find it a fit case for recalling the order of bail passed by the lower Court. This petition being without merit is hereby dismissed.