The petitioners are accused of offences under sections 302, 324, 337-A(ii), 337-F(ii), 148 and 149, P.P.C. Vide F.I.R. No. 207, dated 26-10-1993, registered at Police Station Garh Maharaja, District Jhang.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners, the State and the complainant were heard at length in respect of the contentions raised herein.
3. It was confirmed on behalf of the State that a counter case has been registered by the present accused party vide F.I.R. No.23/95 in respect of the same occurrence as herein, after a great deal of legal efforts, thus explaining the delay caused in the registration of the said case. It was further confirmed on behalf of the State that the accused party had also suffered injuries in the occurrence in question. It has been further taken notice of that the challans in both the cases, pertaining to the cross-version of the parties, have since been submitted to the learned trial Court, as duly confirmed by the learned Assistant Advocate-General.
4. However, the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued against the present bail petition and submitted that, as the bail petition on behalf of the co-accused, Ghulam Shabbir, had been dismissed by my learned brother Raja Afrasiab Khan, J. (as he then was), despite having been claimed on his behalf that there was cross-version in respect of the occurrence in question, therefore, the rule of consistency demands that the present bail petition should also be dismissed; and in this respect placed reliance upon Abdul Salam v. The State 1980 SCM R 142. It has been taken notice of that the said bail petition of the co-accused, Ghulam Shabbir, had been dismissed by his Lord-Ship on 19-3-1994, i.e. Prior to the registration of the cross-case, and prior to the submission of the challan before the learned trial Court in the instant case. To oppose the present bail petition, the learned counsel further placed reliance upon Muhammad Usman and another v. The State 1975 SCM R 391, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court had declined to interfere with the order refusing bail to an accused by the High Court, while observing that mere existence of counter- version in respect of the occurrence therein does not make out a case for bail. The learned counsel for the complainant further placed reliance upon Munawar v. The State 1981 SCM R 1092, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court had refused bail to the accused by holding that the provisions of section 34, P.P.C. Were applicable in their case.
The cases relied upon are distinguishable on facts with the instant case, as there are not only two cases registered in respect of the occurrence in question, but pursuant thereto two challans have been submitted to the learned trial Court and the accused in the case registered on behalf of the present petitioners' party are already on bail, despite the fact that injuries suffered by the accused party herein stand duly confirmed, as their medico-legal reports had been obtained by the police itself.
5. Therefore, pursuant to the above discussion, it is hereby held that, under the circumstances highlighted, i.e. That there are two F.I.Rs. In respect of the occurrence in question and pursuant thereto two challans have been submitted to the learned trial Court, the case of the present petitioners is duly covered under the provisions of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. And that as such their case is one of further inquiry entitling them to bail. In this respect strength is drawn by placing reliance upon Manzoor and 4 others v. The State PLD 1972 SC 81 and Amir v. The State PLD 1972 SC 277, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has held that neither the law is to be stretched in favour of the prosecution nor the bail is to be denied as punishment, further holding that any doubt arising even at the bail stage should be resolved in favour of the accused.
6. Consequently, the petitioners herein are hereby admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C./Duty Magistrate, Jhang.