Petitioners peek post-arrest bail in F.I.R. No. 47, dated 6-3-2000 under sections 302/324/337- A(ii)/337-F(v)/34, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Minchinabad.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution case as unfolded in the F.I.R. Lodged at the instance of complainant Aswa r Khan is that about 14 days ago a fight had taken place between the parties as a result of which cases had been registered and efforts were being made to bring about compromise between the parties and Panchayats were being convened for the said purpose, that on 6-3-2000 at 7-00 a.m. He was going to the house of Mian Bashir Ahmed and had reached the land of Bashir Ahmed, the accused Muhammad Sharif came from the other side and started abusing him, that on their noise Muhammad Hanif, Muhammad Yousaf, A.I Sher, Falak Sher, Muhammad Fayyaz, Qasim A.I, Muhammad Nawaz and Muhammad Irshad armed with their respective weapons reached there. In .The meanwhile on his noise Bahar A.I, Himmat Khan, Umar Hayat, Khizar Hayat also intervened to rescue him, that Muhammad Sharif instigated his co-accused not to spare them and consequently the assailants caused injuries to him as well as to Umar Hayat, Khizar Hayat, Himmat Khan and Bahar A.I who later on succumbed to the injuries. Bashir Ahmad and Irshad A.I attracted on the spot and got the injured rescued from the accused. The complaint then made for the police station alongwith injured and lodged F.I.R.
3. The petitioners applied for bail which relief has been declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 12-10-2000. Hence, the
4. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
5. In the -very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners does not press the bail application to the extent of Fayyaz Ahmad, as such, the same is dismissed to the extent of Fayyaz Ahmad.
6. So far as other accused/petitioners are concerned, stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Muhammad Yousaf petitioner alongwith A.I Sher (not a petitioner) has been attributed role of causing injuries on the person of Aswar Khan/complainant, Khizar Hayat and Umar Hayat with his hatchet, that Muhammad Sharif, Muhammad Hanif are said to have caused injuries on the person of Khizar Hayat, Himmat Khan and the complainant, that Nawaz accused/petitioner is said to have caused injuries on the person of Himmat Khan with a hatchet.
He is further attributed injuries with Soti on the person of complainant, that injuries attributed to Nawaz are of simple in nature, whereas injuries attributed to Muhammad Yousaf, A.I Sher, Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Hanif also do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., that complainant has not lodged F.I.R. With clean hands as he suppressed injuries caused to five accused and even on this account case requires further probe and placed reliance upon Muhammad Shafi and others v. The State (1990 PCr.LJ 929), that it is case of cross-versions as the stand of accused party is that they have been attacked by the complainant, that as a result of their cross-version recorded on the same day as many as 7 persons of the complainant party have been summoned to face trial and this fact further makes the case open for further inquiry and placed reliance on Zafar lqbal v. The State (1999 PCr.L,J 1840) and Muhammad Shafi v. Hakam A.I (1978 SCM R 346) that it is yet to be determined as to which party is an aggressor, that Nawaz is also entitled to bail on the ground of minority as he was born on 20-3-1988 and such was minor at the time of occurrence and placed reliance on Muhammad Sudheer v. State (1998 M LD 1994), that all the petitioners are attributed only simple injuries and they are entitled to bail and placed reliance on Farzand A.I v. Taj and others (2000 SCM R 1854), that they also did not cause any injury to the deceased and even on this ground they are entitled to bail and placed reliance upon Atta Ullah and 3 others v. The State and another (1999 SCM R 1320) and Muhammad Akbar and 4 others v. The State and another (1978 SCM R 7), that accused/petitioners were arrested on 24-3-2000 and as such are in custody for more than 8 months. He thus, submitted that all the facts make the case open for further inquiry, as such petition be accepted and they be admitted to bail.
7. Conversely the bail application has been opposed by the learned counsel for the State. However, it is admitted by the learned State Counsel that challan against the accused/petitioners was submitted on 17-5-2000, whereas challan against the complainant party as a result of counter- version dated 6-3-2000 has been submitted on 18-8-2000. He further argued that even in a case of counter-version relief of bail has been refused and placed reliance upon Jazib Khan and 3 others v. The State (1996 M LD 166).
8. It is evident from the facts stated above that out of the petitioners none has been assigned role of causing injury to the deceased. All of them have been attributed role of causing injuries to the P.W4. Injuries attributed to Nawaz are on the person of Himmat Khan and Aswar Khan and said injuries have been declared simple. The injuries attributed to Muhammad Yousaf are on the person of Aswa r Khan and none of injuries falls within the prohibitory clause. The part attributed to Muhammad Hanif, Muhammad Sharif petitioners is of causing stick blows on the person of Khizar Hayat, Himmat Khan and Aswa r Khan and none of said injuries also fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner Nawaz is also stated to be a minor having been born on 20-3-1988, as such, his case further stands covered under section 306 read with section 308, P.P.C.
9. In the light of facts stated above, cases of Muhammad Yousaf, Muhammad Sharif, Muhammad Hanif and Nawaz, accused/petitioners squarely fall under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. As such petition to the extent of aforementioned petitioners is accepted and they are admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to 'the satisfaction of trial Court.