2. Applicant Anwar who is accused in the case that is outcome of F.I.R. No.56/90 lodged with Police Station Salehpat, has moved for bail.
1. As per the F.I.R. On 19-7-1990 at about 1-00 p.m. Complainant Abdul Ghani was present in Chak of Suleman where applicant Anwar came duly armed with hatchet. The applicant abused the complainant and gave him hatchet blow with sharp side. Complainant received the injury and he bled from the same and raised cries. The incident was witnessed by P.Ws. Ghulam,, Muhammad and Lal Bux who were already present in the Chak. They rescued the complainant. After causing the injuries, applicant went away. Allah Obhayo father of the complainant came there and he was apprised of the incident and he took the complainant to the police station where F.I.R. Was lodged.
2. Motive for the offence was that the applicant owed Rs.100 to the complainant. A day prior to the date of incident the complainant demanded back his money upon which there was exchange of hot words.
3. The only ground urged by Mr. Ghulam Kadir Jatoi, learned counsel for the applicant in support of the application for bail was, that eye-witnesses Ghulam Muhammad, Lal Bux and Allah Obhayo had sworn affidavits exculpating the applicant. In support learned counsel cited the case of Muhammad Nawaz and others v. State 1989 P Cr. L J 1126.
4. The application was opposed by learned Assistant A.-G. Mr. Zawar Hussain Jafferi who argued that the complainant had not sworn any affidavit in favour of the applicant and that the applicant can be convicted on the sole evidence of the complainant if corroborated by the medical evidence. In support learned A.A.-G. Cited case of Sanaullah and others v. State 1983 SCMR 15.
5. 1988 SCMR 541 the facts alleged by the prosecution showed that the accused/ petitioners were not only present at the house from where the two deceased persons were forcibly abducted but were also apprehended from the place where the dead bodies were found and subsequently the accused/petitioners obtained affidavits from the prosecution witnesses to the; effect that no such incident as alleged by the prosecution ever took place and inl the circumstances it was held that the High Court was right in observing that 1 prima facie there were reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners were guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. It was observed in the said case that the affidavits by the witnesses that no such incident as alleged by the prosecution took place, could not be allowed to prevail at bailstage.