' A case under section 147/148/324/337-A(ii)/337-F(iv), P.P.C. Is registered against the petitioners and others vide F.I.R. No,260, dated 24-4-1997 at Police Station Civil Lines, Rawalpindi on the report of one Muhammad Rafique. It was contended in the report that the petitioners while armed with 'Dandas' opened attack with their co-accused and 15/20 persons who remained unnamed in the F.I.R. All of them were armed with 'Dandas' and 'Sarias' (iron bars). During the transaction, Amir Rafique suffered three simple injuries with blunt weapon, Muhammad Rafique sustained eight simple injuries of blunt weapon including one on his head and Wajid Rafique suffered seven simple injuries including one injury on head with blunt weapon.
2. The petitioners with others filed pre-arrest bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge which was dismissed on 10-5-1997. They were taken into custody and were sent to the judicial lock- up. They applied for post arrest bail to the Ilaqa Magistrate which was granted on 25-5-1997. The complainant side applied for cancellation of bail which came up for hearing before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who cancelled the bail of the petitioners vide order dated 5-12-1997.
Hence this petition was filed for the grant of bail by the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the injuries on the person of victims were simple and caused with blunt weapon; that h general role was ascribed to the petitioners during the occurrence alongwith 15/20 assailants who remained unnamed in the F.I.R; that the weapons of offence were never recovered from the petitioners to link them with the occurrence that they had caused injuries with 'Dandas'; that Aziz Haider with almost similar role was admitted to bail and that the case of the petitioners was not distinguishable from him; that the post arrest to the petitioners by the Trial Magistrate was good in the eyes of law and the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 5-12-1997, whereby, those bails were cancelled was not good in the eyes of law as it did not fulfil the test laid down for the cancellation of bail; that a complaint was also filed containing the counter-version against the complainant side in which the accused from the complainant side have also been summoned vide order dated 30-9-1997; that there is a cross- version and it is yet to be determined as to which one of the two versions is more plausible; that the question of aggressor and aggressed is also wide open to be determined during the trial and as such, it becomes a case of further enquiry.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant contended that the petitioners are named in the F.I.R. And they assaulted the victims with 'Dandas' causing them injuries on various parts of their person including head; that the injuries on the vital part of the body such as head will burden the petitioners with the intention to commit murderous assault upon the victims; that the case falls within the prohibitory clause for an offence under section 342, P.P.C. And as such, the bail was not to be granted ordinarily; that the cancellation of bail of the petitioners was rightly ordered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as the case falls within the prohibitory clause, and also because a plea was taken that the petitioners were threatening the complainant side; finally it was contended that petitioners were not entitled to bail at this stage. Learned counsel for the State also supported the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the complainant at the Bar.
5. I have considered the foregoing submissions and find that the trial Court had admitted the petitioners to bail again which the petition for cancellation was moved which remained pending for about six months, whereafter, the bail was cancelled. It is true that the plea was taken in the petition for cancellation that the accused side was threatening the complainant after getting the bail but according to the learned counsel for the petitioners this plea was not pressed and as such, this was not taken into consideration even in the impugned order and that the same cannot be agitated at this stage. This being so and since there are two versions about the same occurrence for which a complaint has already been instituted in which the other side has been summoned, therefore, the question as to which of the parties was aggressor is yet wide open thereby opening the scope of further enquiry. The deeper appreciation of the merits of the case cannot be undertaken at this stage lest it may prejudice the trial itself. It is enough to say that a general role is attributed to the petitioners during the assault; that there is a counter version about the same occurrence; that there is no enmity between the parties; that no recovery of the weapon of the offence has been made; that there is no conviction to the credit of the petitioners; and that they have been in judicial lock-up since after the cancellation of their bails, hence, they have a good case to be released on bail. I, therefore, allow the bail application and admit each of the petitioners to bail in the sum of Rs,25,000 with a surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
6. The challan has not yet been sent to the Court concerned which speaks for the casual attitude of the police towards the provisions contained in proviso to section 173(1), Cr.P.C. Which says that where investigation is not completed within a period of fourteen days from the date of recording of the first information report under section 154, the officer incharge of the police station shall, within three days of the expiration of such period, forward to the Magistrate through the Public Prosecutor, an interim report in the form prescribed by the Provincial Government. This should be brought to the notice of the S.S.P., Rawalpindi who shall call upon the Investigating Officer as to why the provisions of the aforesaid section were not complied with. He shall also examine the issue deeply and will take concrete steps to ensure that the provisions contained in the aforesaid section shall be meticulously followed in future by the police officers under his control. Any action taken in this regard by the S.S.P., Rawalpindi shall be intimated to this Court through the Deputy Registrar (Judi), Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi within one month of the communication of this order to him. Meanwhile, the S.H.O. Concerned is directed to submit the challan in this case to the Court concerned within two weeks without fail.