' A case under section 337-F(i)/337-F(ii)/337-A(i)/337-A(v), P.P.C. Read with section 147/148, P.P.C. Is registered against the petitioners and others vide F.I.R. No,272 of 1996, dated 26-12-1996 at Police Station Pahrianwali, District Mandi Baha-ud-Din on the ground that while armed with Sotas they attacked the complainant party and caused injuries to six persons. They were admitted to post- arrest bail by the learned trial Court. An application for cancellation of bail was moved before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi Baha-ud-Din who accepted the application and cancelled the bails of the petitioners. Hence this petition.
2. According to the F.I.R., general role is attributed to the petitioners for causing injuries to the aforesaid six persons on different parts of bodies. The most serious injury is on the body of Lal Khan which has been held as a fracture of right ulna and has been declared Jurh Ghyr Jaifa Munaqqilah.
The injuries to the rest of the victims are alleged to be Khafif (simple).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the complainant side was the aggressor as they had opdned the attack thereby causing injuries to three persons from the accused side whose name have been given as Sardar Khan, Muhammad Hayat and Sumera Bibi. The petitioners i,e,; the accused side allegedly approached the police but their case was discharged on the ground that injuries to Sardar Khan, Muhammad Hayat and Sumera Bibi were allegedly self- inflicted. It was alleged that the police came to the wrong conclusion which necessitated the filing of a complaint which is still pending. The motive for the occurrence was a long standing enmity between the parties. As such it is submitted that there are two version about the same occurrence and it is yet to be determined as to which one of the parties was aggressor. Hence, it was alleged to be a case of further enquiry. Lastly, it was contended that none of the offences falls within the prohibitory clause.
4. The bail petition is resisted on the ground that six persons were injured clue to the violent attack opened by the petitioners and their co-accused. Further, it was submitted that the police investigation led to a conclusion that the counter-version of the petitioners was false and as such, all the accused were challaned. Since the petitioners acted in a cruel manner to cause injuries to six persons including a woman, therefore, they were allegedly not entitled to bail particularly when one of the accused is an absconder.
5. I have considered the above submissions and find that according to the medico-legal reports, placed on record, three persons from the petitioners' side namely Sardar Khan, Muhammad Hayat and Sumera Bibi were also injured. As such, there is a cross-version regarding the same occurrence. A complaint to that effect is pending in a Court of competent jurisdiction. Though the police has come to the conclusion that the complainant side was not the aggressor but the matter is yet wide open as the cross-version put up by the petitioners/accused is yet sub judice on account of a complaint pending before a Court of competent jurisdiction. Any observation on the merits of the cross-version at this stage is likely to influence the course of trial in the complaint case. Even otherwise, deeper appreciation of the merits of the case cannot be undertaken at this stage lest it may prejudice the trial itself. Since none of the offences is stated to be punishable with death or imprisonment for life, therefore, under the circumstances, the petitioners are entitled to bail. The order cancelling their bails passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi Baha- ud-Din is set aside. The petition is accordingly accepted and the petitioners are admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount as initially directed by the trial Court. The bail bonds and the sureties will be given by the petitioners to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
6. Disposed of.