' The petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case registered vide F.I.R. No,,315 of 1997, dated 11-5- 1997, under section 302/354/34/324/452/337-AW/ 337-F(i), P.P.C. With 'Police Station City "A"
Division, Sheikhupura at the instance of Muhammad Hussain.
2. The prosecution version as narrated in the first information report by the complainant Muhammad Hussain is that on 11-5-1997 at 10-15 a.m. He along with his brother Ali Hassan, his sister Mst. Naseem Bibi and Muhammad Sharif son of Muhammad Ramzan were sitting in their house when Yaseen armed with mouzer, Zafar Iqbal (petitioner) armed with single barrel .12 bore gun and Muhammad Din armed with Chhuri, sons of Abdul Ghafoor, all of a sudden entered their house.
Yaseen co-accused raised Lalkara saying that the complainant party would be taught a lesson for insulting them. Upon which the petitioner opened fire with his gun and the first shot hit Ali Hassan, his brother, on the right thigh and the second shot fired hit Ali Hassan on his right hand.
Muhammad Din co-accused inflicted Chhuri blow on the person of Mst. Naseem Bibi on her right arm and lastly, Yaseen inflicted blow with butt of his mouzer on the head of Muhammad Sharif. On hue and cry raised by the complainant. Ghulam Muhammad son of Phallo Khan- and Muhammad Khan son of Ramzan were attracted to the place of occurrence. It was stated in the F.L.R. That the accused had gone to their house and inflicted fire-arm injuries on their mother.
3. The motive for the occurrence is said to be a dispute about 9/10 days back between Zafar Iqbal (petitioner) and the cousin of the complainant at a marriage ceremony where Zafar was reprimanded for starting the quarrel. It was due to this that the present occurrence took place.
4. Ali Hassan was admitted in Mayo Hospital, Lahore and subsequently died on 23-5-1997 due to the injuries which he received on his thigh at the hands of the petitioner.
5. The complainant and the accused lived on either side of the street with their houses facing each other.
6. Muhammad Din on 11-5-1997, during the investigation of case F.I.R. No,,315 of 1997, got a statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. In this statement, he stated that on the said date he along with his brother Yaseen and his mother Ghulam Fatima along with one Yagoob who had come to their house were sitting inside when they saw Mst. Nasreen sister of the complainant in F.I.R. No,,315 of 1997, throw rubbish in front of the door of their house. Mst. Fatima their mother stopped Mst. Nasreen from doing so, upon which she was abused. After some time, Ali Hassan armed with Chhuri, Muhammad Hussain armed with double-barrel .12 bore gun, sons of Rashid and Sharif son of Muhammad Ramzan armed with Danda came to their house raising Lalkaras and soon thereafter started beating Yaseen. Muhammad Sharif gave Sota blow to Yaseen whereupon his mother Mst. Ghulam Fatima went to save Yaseen, upon which she was stabbed twice by Ali Hassan deceased which hit her on the nose and right arm. Simultaneously Muhammad Hussain complainant in case F.I.R. 351 of 1997 fired with his .12 bore gun which hit the forearm of his mother and she fell on the ground. On hearing the sound of firing, his brother Zafar Iqbal (petitioner) came put and when he saw his mother and brother in injured condition, he took his .12 bore gun and came out of the house in the street and fired at Ali Hassan, who fell on the ground. The noise of firing attracted Mehmood Arshad and others, who came to the house and took Muhammad Hussain etc. Away to their house. This witness stated that he took his mother Mst. Ghulam Fatima and brother Yaseen to hospital and obtained their medico-legal reports. On advise of the doctor, his mother Mst. Ghulam Fatima was admitted to Mayo Hospital for treatment.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that after the death of Ali Hassan, police became reluctant to lodge a counter-version with the result that they filed a complaint before the Senior Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate Section 30 who vide his order, dated 16-6-1998, after recording of preliminary evidence by Muhammad Siddique, Legal Inspector, appointed as Inquiry Officer, under section 202, Cr.P.C., Muhammad Hussain son of Bashir and Muhammad Sharif son of Muhammad Ramzan were summoned as prima facie case was made out against them.
8. Learned counsel submitted that the injuries on the person of Mst. Ghulam Fatima and Yaseen suppressed by the complainant party in the F.I.R. No,,315 of 1997 and strangely enough complainant stated in F.I.R. That the accused caused injuries to their mother which is not only unbelievable but absurd. It was further stated that in an occurrence where there was a counter-version it became a matter of further inquiry. Reliance was placed on Shoaib Mehmood Butt v. Iftikhar-ul-Haq and others 1996 SCM R 1845. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stressed that the fact that the Magistrate Section 30 before whom complaint was filed found, prima facie, a case against the opposite party and summoned them was a good ground for bail. Reliance is placed on Allah Dad etc. v. The State 1983 PCr.LJ 2394.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that it was a broad daylight occurrence and the first information report was lodged with promptitude and the occurrence had taken place in the house of the complainant which clearly shows that the accused were the aggressors. He relied on Anwar Khan v. The State 1978 SCM R 314 in support of his arguments.
10. I have gone through the dictum of the Honorable Supreme Celia in Shoaib Mehmood Butt v.
Iftikhar-ul-Haq and 3 others 1996 SCM R 1845. It was held that the counter-version arising from the same incident, one given by the complainant in the F.I.R. And the other given by the opposite party, it is almost settled that such cases are covered for grant of bail on the ground of further inquiry as contemplated under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. In such case normally bail is granted on the ground of further inquiry for the reason that the question as to which version is correct is to be decided by the trial Court. Following the dictum of the Supreme Court in the above noted cases, I am persuaded to exercise my discretion in favor of the petitioner to enlarge him on bail. Consequently, the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.