' Brief facts of the case are that a case F.I.R. No,290, dated 14-11-1995 under sections 337-F(vi), 334/34, P.P.C. Was registered at Police Station City Chakwal, District Chakwal, on the report lodged by Umar Hayat, complainant, against four persons namely Zahoor Ahmad, present petitioner, Muhammad Munir Noor Muhammad and Altaf. As far as the other three co-accused are concerned, they have since been released on bail.
2. Admittedly, Zahoor Ahmad, petitioner was empty-handed and this fact is mentioned in the F.LR.
The allegation against the petitioner is that he raised Lalkara and inflicted a fist blow to Umar Hayat. According to medico-legal report there are two injured persons from the complainant's side, namely, Umar Hayat, the complainant received three injuries one on the nose and the other two are the complaint of pain. As far as the other injured Taj Muhammad is concerned, he received five injuries as per medico-legal report, all the injuries are simple in nature and caused with blunt weapon. Another injury has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the complainant, caused by fist blow on the person of the complainant, which broke the teeth of the. Complainant. Doctor also reported this fact but there was no corresponding wound on the lips of the injured.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks bail for the petitioner on the grounds that according to the police report the offence falls, under the prohibitory clause but learned counsel argyle that section 337-F(Vi), P.P.C. Does not fall under the prohibitory clause; that during investigation, the petitioner was declared innocent by the police, that finding is still intact; that the petitioner was empty-handed and he was not having any weapon of offence; that there is no 'allegation that he repeated the blow; that co-accused are on bail and the case of the present petitioner is at par to that of his co-accused; that petitioner was arrested on 21-11-1995; and his person is no more required by the police.
4. On the other hand, learned 'counsel for the State and the complainant vehemently opposed the bail petition, especially on the ground that grievous injury has been attributed to the petitioner; that plea of alibi taken by the petitioner is not acceptable because it based on no cogent reason and material. Learned counsel for the complainant has stated that investigation carried out by the police is based on mala fide.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
As far as the petitioner is concerned, admittedly, he was empty-handed and used only one fist blow on the nose of the complainant but he has not repeated blow to any one. Though there is a finding of the police that the petitioner was not present at that time and the alleged place of occurrence but the same is based on oral statements of one Moulvi and two other persons.
6. As far as the plea of alibi is concerned, the police should act in accordance with law and not rely upon the oral evidence, in such-like cases. The petitioner has been arrested and confined in the jail.
His person is no more required by the police. The other co-accused are already on bail. His case is at par to that of his co-accused. The principle of consistency is applicable to this case.
7. Under the given circumstances, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing his bail bonds in the sum of Rs,30,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The observations made in this order shall not affect the merits of the case at the time of its trial.