S.M.ZUBA1R, J.--The petitioner has applied for the grant of post-arrest bail in a case registered against him vide F.I.R. No. 90, dated 13.6.1989, under sections 302/307/452/148/149 P.P.C, at Police Station Ahmadnagar District Gujranwala.
2. The allegation against the petitioner as contained in the F.I.R, is that he participated in the occurrence and inflicted injury to Mst. Sharifan Bibi on her left arm.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that according to the investigation conducted by the Superintendent of Police as is apparent from Zimni No.1, dated 4.8.1989 the fight took place all of a sudden on account of the unloading of the earth and every accused is responsible for his own individual act. He submits that as the petitioner has caused simple injury with sharp edged weapon on the non-vital part of the deceased, hence his case falls within the ambit of further inquiry as it would be determined after the recording of some evidence whether the petitioner shared common intention with the principal accused or not. He has placed reliance on 1986 S.C.M.R. 489 and 1984 S.C.M.R. 530.
4. The learned counsel for the State, assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant and the Investigating Officer has vehemently opposed this bail application on the ground that the petitioner has caused sharp edged weapon injury though simple in nature to the deceased, hence he is not entitled to the grant of bail. He has conceded that there is cross-case against the complainant party.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the police record, I find that there is substantial force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the finding of the S.P. That the fight took place due to the unloading of earth and not due to the motive as mentioned in the F.I.R, the case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry as held in the case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner mentioned above. Over and above this, there is cross-case against the complainant party, hence it would be difficult to determine the criminal liability of the petitioner at this stage. In view of the fact that there is finding of the S.P. On the record that the occurrence took place in dark night, hence it cannot be said with certainty that actually the petitioner intended to cause death of the deceased while inflicting simple injury on her with chhuri.
6. In view of the above discussion, I find that the case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry, hence he is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C. Gujranwala.