Petitioner is one of 25 accused in case F.I.R. No.273 dated 26-12-1996 under section 302/323/337- H(ii) read with section 148/149, P.P.C., Police Station Machhiwal, District Vehari. According to the complainant he alongwith the members of his family was picking cotton from the fields when Bashir Ahmad and others including Qutab, who was armed with hatchet came to the spot and started belabouring the complainant party. Bashir Ahmad gave a blow with hatchet to the head of Mst. Siani Bibi (deceased), while the other accused assaulted the members of the complainant party causing injuries to a number of them. No specific role was attributed to the petitioner in the F.I.R., but later, in their statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. Mst. Karam Bibi and Noor P.Ws. alleged that Qutab gave blows with wrong side of hatchet to their head and fore-arm.
2.The petitioner seeks post arrest bail in the case.
3.Learned counsel submitted that Ghulam Muhammad had cultivated cotton crop and the complainant party without any justification started picking up the cotton from the field and on account of that general fight between the parties took place in which a number of persons on both sides were injured, but the complainant on account of death of Mst. Siani Bibi succeeded in getting this false case registered against the petitioner was 24 of his co-accused. It was submitted that in the first instance no overt act was ascribed to the petitioner but later two prosecution witnesses claimed that he had given blows with hatchets to them but injuries on their persons did not bring the case of the petitioner within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the State opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner and submitted that he was member of an unlawful assembly, which had attacked the complainant party.
4. Qutab petitioner according to F.I.R. had come to the spot armed with hatchet, but no specific injury to any of the P.Ws. has been ascribed to him. Subsequently, Mst. Karam Bhari and Noor in their statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. stated that he caused blunt weapon injuries to them. The individual role ascribed to the petitioner does not bring his case within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner, as such, is allowed bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Sessions Judge, Vehari.