MUNIR A.SHEIKH, J.- The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered under sections 307/34 PPC, at Police Station Darahma, District Dera Ghazi Khan, vide F.I.R. No. 95 dated 25.9.1990 against him alongwith other co-accused. The role attributed to the petitioner is causing of injury at the head of the victim with kulhari. This injury has been declared to be simple. The co-accused Mohammad Bilal who was armed with pistol and Sher Mohammad who was armed with stick have been granted bail. Hussain Bakhsh the other co-accused has been declared innocent. In the initial inquiry the case was found to be false and got cancelled. On the application of the complainant the investigation was re-opened and the petitioner alongwith other co-accused have been challaned. The occurrence took place at 3. A.M. Which was a dark night. This occurrence took place in the night between 24th and 25th September, 1990 and F.I.R, was lodged at 3.30 P.M. On 25.9.1990 after the victim was got medically examined from a private doctor. The motive as alleged in the F.I.R, is that about four years back the present petitioner's father was murdered by Wazir the brother of the complainant which was compromised about a year back. Land measuring six Bigas was given to the petitioner's party and a female of the complainant party was also given in marriage in the family of the present petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner was considering the said compensation as in-sufficient therefore, he committed the offence with intention to murder Amir Bakhsh the victim who is the brother of said Wazir and the complainant.
2. There is no allegation that the other co-accused Muhammad Bilal who was armed with pistol fired any shot. It is also not alleged that the petitioner repeated the blow. The occurrence took place at 3 A.M. At night which was dark. The question which falls for consideration is whether in these circumstances it should be presumed at this stage that the petitioner intended to cause murder particularly when the injury, attributed to the petitioner is simple in nature. The F.I.R, was lodged after getting the injured medically examined from private doctor. It is a case of further inquiry. In the initial inquiry the case was found to be false. In these circumstances, it is a case which falls under section 497(2) Cr.P.C. The petitioner is behind the bar for the last nine months whereas the other co- accused have been granted bail and third accused has been declared innocent and was not challaned.
3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the State that a date has been fixed for recording evidence and this Court should not exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner at this stage, in view of the rule laid down in judgment reported as Muhammad Sadik and others Versus The State (1980 S.C.M.R. 203).
4. There is no hard and fast rule that in no circumstance if a case is fixed for trial bail should be declined. Each case has to be considered in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. It has been held in a case reported as Shaukat Khan Versus The State (1986 P.Cr.L.J. 1054) that if an accused person is otherwise entitled to bail on merits, the same could not be declined merely because the trial has commenced. In so many reported cases it has been held that where the accused did not repeat the act of causing injury it was a case of further inquiry.
5. The petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 50,000.00 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. This Crl. Misc stands disposed of.