' Through this application Muhammad Hussain son of Taj Din seeks his release on bail in a case registered against him and others under sections 336, 337-A, 337-F of Qisas and Diyat Ordinance vide F.I.R. No,31, dated 23-2-1992 registered at Police Station Kotli Loharan for causing injuries to Mushtaq Ahmad complainant, Fa7a1 Ahmad and Mst. Sughran Bibi, etc. In the area of Mauza Rangpur Saroochan, alongwith two other co-accused namely Abdur Rauf and Akbar.
2. The brief facts as contained in the F,I.R. Lodged by Musthaq Ahmad are that he is a labourer and on 23-2-1992 at about 11/12 noon he alongwith Faza1 Ahmad, his father and Mst. Sughran Bibi, his brother's wife were all present in their land and were ploughing the same with tractor. In the meantime they saw Abdur Rauf armed with hatchet, Muhammad Hussain petitioner armed with Sota, Akbar armed with Sota came there. They raised a Lalkara that they would teach them a lesson to occupy the land. They were going to stop the tractor when Akbar gave a Sota blow to Fa7al Ahmad hitting him on his left eye. He fell down. Abdur Rauf gave a hatchet blow to Sughran on her left arm. Muhammad Hussain gave a Sota blow to the complainant on his right hand and also inflicted repeated blows on Mushtaq Ahmad complainant. Akbar gave many Sota blows to the father of the complainant on his left leg and back. Petitioner also gave Sota blows to Mst. Sughran Bibi. In the meantime Muhammad Sharif and Ashiq Hussain came there, intervened and rescued the complainant.
' A dispute over Shamlat Deh is allegedly served as a motive in this case.
' A counter-version has also been recorded on the statement of Muhammad Akbar co-accused which is Annexure "F'. Six persons including the complainant have also been challaned for causing injuries to the accused party and particularly a grievous injury on the person of the petitioner.
3. That the petitioner was once released on bail on 24-3-1992 on medical ground but the same was cancelled by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot vide his order dated 18-4-1992. The petitioner was again admitted to bail on 244-1992 on merits on the ground that it was admittedly a cross-version case and the opposite side has already been released on bail but again the same was cancelled by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his order dated 19-8-1992. Hence this petition for bail.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a case of a cross-version and as a result of investigation of the said case a cross-challan report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Has been prepared by the local police for submitting the challan against the accused persons in the Court as well. It was asserted with vehemence that the complainant and other P.Ws. Have not explained the injuries on the person of the petitioner and other co-accused when they sustained grievous injuries at the hands of the complainant party and the copies of the medico-legal reports are Annexures "L" and "M" respectively. Abdur Rauf co-accused sustained two injuries by sharp-edged weapon and the petitioner received one grievous injury on the right shoulder joint as it was found dislocated clinically. It was argued that it is a case of cross-version and it will be determined only at the trial after recording evidence as to which party acted as aggressor and as such there are no reasons to believe that the petitioner and the co-accused committed the aggression.
5. The learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant contended that actually the possession over the disputed land was that of the complainant party and they were the accused who came armed to forcibly take possession from them and hence this occurrence took place. So the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail on the point of counter-version case. It was also argued that the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner is punishable for ten years which falls under the prohibition of section 497, Cr.P.C. And, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by both sides and have also gone through the record very carefully. Admittedly Abdur Rauf co-accused sustained two injuries with sharp-edged weapon whereas petitioner has also sustained injuries out of which one has been confirmed as a grievous injury on the right shoulder joint after X-ray as it was found dislocated clinically. It is also admitted that it is a case of cross-version and as a result of the investigation the cross-challan report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Has also been prepared by the local police against the complainant party and they have also been challaned for causing injuries to the petitioner and others. It is also an admitted fact that both the sides are litigating over a dispute of Shamlat Deh. I have also gone through the F.I.R. And the statements of the P.Ws. Wherein the complainant has not explained the injuries on the person of the petitioner and other co-accused. It is also admitted by the police and the opposite side that the accused in the cross-case have already been released on bail.
7. It is a settled principle of law that where the accused are also injured seriously and a cross-case is also registered against the complainant party then the case falls under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. In a cross-case if bail is allowed to one party then the other party is also entitled to be released on bail to pursue their defence, as it is yet to be determined that which party was at fault.
8. In view of the circumstances of this case I allow this petition and direct that the petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Sialkot. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.