' Through this petition the petitioner seeks cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh, vide order, dated 14-4-2001.
2. The respondents were named as accused in the case F.I.R. No, 108, dated 8-3-2001 registered under sections 440, 148, 149, 337-A(ii) and 337-H, P.P.C., at Police Station Qureshi, District Muzaffargarh.
3. It is alleged in the F.I.R. That respondents/accused alongwith 11 others launched an assault on the complainant and his accompanying P.Ws. When the respondents and other accused were stopped from construction on the land belonging to the complainant party.
4. The role assigned to the respondents was that Rab Nawaz respondent gave two Sota blows on the person of Gulzar Ahmad while Muhamamd Nasir respondent gave hatchet blow on the person of Iftikhar Ahmad brother of the complainant. It was further alleged in the F.I.R. That Gulzar Ahmad, Iftikhar Ahmad and Mukhtar Ahmad received injuries at the hands of the accused and their companions.
5. Op the same day Rab Nawaz respondent also reported his version of the occurrence before the police, which was entered through Rapt No,23, dated 8-3-2001, who in his report not only gave his version about the occurrence but also admitted that three persons on the other side namely Gulzar Ahmad, Iftikhar Ahmad and Mukhtar Ahmad received injuries when Rab Nawaz and his other accompanying witnesses tried to defend themselves. The abovementioned Gulzar Ahmad, Iftikhar Ahmad and Mukhtar Ahmad are the injured P.Ws. In the F.I.R., wherein the respondents have been named as accused. According to the said Rapt, Rab Nawaz and Muhammad Nasir respondents received injuries at the hands of the accused from the other side.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks cancellation of the post-arrest bail granted to the respondents only on two grounds. Firstly, that a case under section 7-B of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 read with section 324, P.P.C. Was made out against the respondents and secondly that respondents were not only the aggressor but also a specific role was attributed to them in the F.I.R.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh. Undisputedly, it is a case of two versions and it has been noticed by me that the injuries on the persons of the respondents were suppressed by the complainant. The fight started over a construction on the disputed land. It has been conceded in the F.I.R. That the accused were busy in construction on the disputed land and it was the complainant party, which reached the place of occurrence and tried to stop them.
So, in the circumstances it is yet to be seen, which side was aggressor. Particularly when respondent Rab Nawaz reported his version to the police on that very day.
8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact it was an offence under section 7-B of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, has no force whatsoever. The offence under section 324, P.P.C. And under section 7-B of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, do not exist on record. It is a settled principle of law that case cannot be stretched in favour of the prosecution or in favour of the accused. Reference is made to the case of Muhammad Amir v. The State (PLD 1972 SC 277). The learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any perversity or arbitrariness in the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. I am also of the view that it is a case of two versions in which both the parties have received injuries and it is yet to be seen, who is aggressor, therefore, it is a case of further inquiry. The considerations for grant of bail and that of cancellation of already granted bail are entirely different.
9. For what has been discussed above, I do not find any merit in the present petition, which stands dismissed in limine.