' The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,171 of 2001, dated 5-6-2001 under sections 337-F(i), 337-F(v) and 452/34, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Burjwala, District Sahiwal.
2. Brief facts of the case as given in the F.1.R. Are that on 28-5-2001 at about 6-00 a.m.
Complainant's wife Mst. Sardaran was present in her house when the petitioner alongwith his co- accused entered the house. The petitioner gave a sota blow on the left arm of Mst. Sardaran while the co-accused also inflicted a sota blow to her. In the meanwhile P.Ws. Were attracted to the spot, who rescued her from the assailants.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the offence with which the petitioner is charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; that the injury attributed to the petitioner was on the non-vital part of the body; that the petitioner had not repeated any blow; that there is a delay of 8 days in the registration of the case; that the co-accused has been allowed bail, therefore, on the basis of rule of consistency the petitioner is entitled for the concession of bail; that in the M.L.R. The doctor has not given the duration of injuries, therefore, it cannot be ascertained that the injuries were caused at the time alleged in the F.I.R.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed this application.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. From the M.L.R., prima facie, it cannot be ascertained that when these injuries were suffered by Mst. Sardaran. The offences are not punishable for 10 years or more. In such-like cases grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception. Although there was exceptional circumstances in the said case that the injuries were given to a woman but since the M.L.R. Is creating some doubt in my mind, therefore, I admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.