1. The petitioners stand charged under sections 365, 337-A(i), 337-F(i)/148/149, P.P.C. vide F.I.R. No,73 dated 11-4-1997 registered at P.S. Fateh Sher, District Sahiwal.
2. 2.It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the occurrence took place on 8-4-1997 whereas the report was lodged en 11-4-1997, that the delay of three days has not been properly explained, that as per contention raised in the F.I.R. Abdul Hameed Petitioner has been shown as empty handed, whereas Muhammad Mushtaq petitioner is stated to be armed with an Iron bar, that the injuries attributed to Mushtaq petitioner are punishable up to 3 years as such the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause, that the provisions of section 365 or 364 P.P.C. are not attracted in the instant case, that as per investigation conducted by the D.S.P., the petitioners have been found innocent, that petitioner Mushtaq was arrested on 16-4-1997 whereas Abdul Hameed petitioner was arrested on 13-4-1997 and since then they are in judicial lock up, that all these facts make the case of the petitioners open for further inquiry, as such they may be granted the relief of bail.
3. 3.Conversely the bail application has been opposed by the learned State Counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant.
4. 4.It is stated by learned counsel for the complainant that the investigation conducted by D.S.P. declaring the petitioners innocent did not find favour with the trial Court, that as per investigation conducted by S.P. Sahiwal, both the petitioners have been found guilty for the commission of offence alleged against them, that the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands as they suppressed the factum regarding rejections of previous bail petitions vide orders dated 16-4-1997 and 30-4-1997 and have disclosed about order dated 13-5-1997 only, that provisions of section 364, P.P.C. are attracted as the injured was removed about 1/1-2 miles away and was caused injuries- with intention to cause his murder, that offence under section 506/341, P.P.C. have also been added vide case diary dated 24-5-1997 on the basis of statements recorded subsequently, that case does not fall within the ambit of section 497(2), Cr.P.C., as such petitioners are not entitled to the relief and relied upon 1985 SCM R 1982. He thus prayed petition be dismissed.
5. 5.As discussed above, petitioner Abdul Hameed has been shown empty handed and has not been attributed any part, what to speak of active role. However, petitioner Mushtaq Ahmad has been attributed injuries with Iron bar. The nature of injuries clearly shows that these have not been inflicted with any intention to cause death of the injured and the maximum punishment which can be awarded for causing such injuries does not fall within the prohibitory clause. Again, the question of provisions of section 364 P.P.C. are attracted or not, is yet to be seen at the time of trial. The petitioners are in jail for the last about three months. There is delay of three days in lodging F.I.R. and one Investigating Officer has also found the petitioners as innocent, though such findings are not binding and were reversed in the subsequent investigation. However, all these facts, put together, make the case of petition= open for further inquiry as such petition is accepted and they are admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,25,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.