Zafar Iqbal has assailed the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Kharian dated 13-6-2000 whereby anticipatory bail was allowed to respondents Nos. 1 to 8.
2. The F.I.R. Was lodged by Zafar Iqbal who divulged that on 26-4-2000 at 7-00 a. m. Respondents entered his house and gave beating to him and the two witnesses namely Abdul Aziz and Muhammad Younas who came to rescue him.
Medico-legal certificates of all the three injured are appended. It is stated that while going away they forcibly took the rifle belonging to the complainant.
3. Learned counsel contends that it was not a case of pre-arrest bail as no mala fide was alleged either at the instance of the complainant or the police and,further stated that medico-legal reports obtained by some ofthe respondents were manipulated as per report of the Board constituted on his request gave a different finding, therefore, the bail allowed to the respondents be recalled. On the other hand learned counsel for --the complainant has submitted that two of the respondents namely Asjad and Javaid also have injuries and it is yet to be determined as to who is the aggressor. Learned counsel for the State supported the counsel for the respondents and submitted that bail allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kharian was in accordance with law and there is nothing on record to show that the same be recalled as the respondents have not abused the discretion granted in their favour.
4. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the available record.
5. Asjad Iqbal and Javaid Iqbal are two injured persons from the side of the respondents. Asjad Iqbal has four injuries but the Board constituted reached the conclusion that no marks of injuries on Asjad Iqbal were visible corresponding to Injury Nos. 2, 3 and 4, they, therefore, concluded that the medico-legal report might be manipulated. I regret I do not see eye to eye with the examination, conducted by the Board for the simple reasons that medico legal report of Asjad is dated 27-4-2000, whereas, the Board deliberated exact one month, thereafter on 27-5-2000. The police officer present in Court states that the gun was recovered from the respondents. It is well nigh impossible that the respondents who were not interned and were allowed interim bail, which was subsequently confirmed, would get the gun recovered unless they produced it voluntarily, according to their assertion the complainant was about to use the gun which was snatched by them and given to the Investigating Officer. This shows bona fide on their part for they could have retained the gun or destroyed it, as they were not incarcerated. In such like cases it has to be determined in the first instance as to who is the aggressor and thereafter the question whether the right of self-defence was exceeded or not is resolved. For the present since the respondents were also injured and they claimed that the occurrence took place in the street, therefore, discretion exercised by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kharian District Gujrat as far back as 13-6-2000 seems to be proper and no p 'interference is required. However, the trial Judge is directed to expeditiously record the evidence of the witnesses as the challan has been submitted in Court and once the evidence comes on record the complainant shall be at liberty-to move the application for cancellation of bail in case it is found that the respondents were the aggressors. With this observation, there is no merit in this application for cancellation of bail which is accordingly dismissed.