' Through this application, petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,342 of 2000 registered on 23-5-2000 under sections 302/109, 337-A(i), 337-L(ii) and 148/149, P.P.C. At Police Station Pindi Bhattian, on the statement of Muhammad Ashraf.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Muhammad Boota who died 6/7 years ago, relative of the complainant in his lifetime gave his agricultural land to, his sons Sultan, Allah Yar, Shera, Meer Dar and Bashir Ahmed but did not give land to his other two sons namely Muhammad Yar and Sardara.
Muhammad Yar got the mutation cancelled upon which a civil suit was filed by Bashir Ahmed and stay order was passed. Muhammad Yar was aggrieved of the filing of the suit, he entered into an agreement to sell land with Sharif and Muhamamd Ali.
3. On 23-5-2000 at about 8-30 p.m. Bashir Ahmed, Allah Yar and Muhammad Yar too were present at their Dera, where Muhammad Yar, Falak Sher, armed with hatchet Saif Ullah, Ahmed Khan and Allah Ditta armed with Sotas came and tried to take possession of the land. But they were reprimanded by Bashir Ahmad and Allah Yar, so they attacked them. Muhammad Yar inflicted hatchet below near the left ear of Bashir Ahmed who fell down and Falak Sher gave him hatchet below which landed on his left eye-brow. Saif Ullah inflicted a Sota blow on the backside of the head of Bashir Ahmed and blow of Ahmad Khan on his left arm and all the accused gave him different blows on different parts of his body. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that five persons from the side of the accused/petitioner received injuries which have been suppressed by the complainant. He is not truthful witness and no sanctity is attached to F.I.R. He further contends that Saif Ullah petitioner received eight injuries and some of the injuries are on the head. It is also conteded that three accused namely, Allah Ditta, Muhammad Ali and Muhammad Sharif have been found innocent by the police during the investigation. He has further contended that Ahmed Khan has been granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge. It is also contended that the petitioner has committed offence only.To the extent of sections 337-A and 337-L(ii) which are bailable. It is also contended that Sardara one of the witnesses has sworn an affidavit in favour of the petitioner that he did not participate in the occurrence. It is further contended that the complainant party was the aggressor and receiving of, injuries by the accused side is sufficient to support the defence version. It is yet to be determined at the trial as to which of the parties was the aggressor. The petitioner is entitled to grant of bail.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R.
And one of the fatal injuries received by Muhammad Bashir deceased on the backside of his head is attributed to the petitioner. This injury is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
According to the post-mortem report, the petitioner is guilty of an offence covered by the prohibition contained in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner has failed to make out a case for the grant of bail. Learned state Counsel has also opposed the bail application of the petitioner and has adopted arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner is attributed injury with Sota on the backside of head of Muhammad Bashir deceased. According to the post- mortem report, Injury No,2 is the injury which is attribtued to the petitioner and doctor has given opinion that all the three injuries on the person of deceased are intentional and collectively sufficient to cause the death of the deceased. Hence the petitioner is involved in the criminal case.
The case of the prosecution is supported by the medical evidence. The contention of the learned counel for the petitioner is that the petitioner received eight injuries. I have noticed that all the injuries are simple in nature caused by blunt weapon. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the injuries have been suppressed by the complainant party is no ground for the accused who has caused the fatal injury to the deceased during the occurrence. The petitioner who has played the main role in the commission of the crime is not entitled to the bail on the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. In the circumstances of the case, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of an offence covered by the prohibition contained in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
And the petitioner is not entitled to grant of bail. This petition has no merits and is dismissed.