' Through the present petition Nazar Abbas complainant of case F.I.R. No,103 of 2001 registered at Police Station Saddar Alipur, District Muzaffargarh under section 337-A(ii)/34, P.P.C. Seeks cancellation of bail granted to respondent Munir Ahmad by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alipur vide his order, dated 1-6-2001.
2. The brief allegation as levelled in the F.I.R. Was that respondent-accused was one of the tenants of the complainant who had to pay Rs,3,93,750 to the complainant. It is alleged that on the fateful day Muhammad Nawaz an agent of the complainant had gone to recover the lease money when he was attacked by the co-accused and his companions and resultantly Muhammad Nawaz received four injuries at the hands of the respondent and other co-accused.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has sought cancellation of pre-arrest bail on the following grounds:--
(i) that a specific role was attributed to the respondent who caused a head injury with a Sota on the person. Of Muhammad Nawaz and medical evidence supports the version of the F.I.R.;
(ii) that the F.I.R. Was lodged without any delay; and
(iii) the case of the respondent did not qualify for pre-arrest bail in the light of the principles laid down in the case of Murad Khan v. Fazal-e-Subhan PLD 1983 SC 82.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned counsel for the State and have also gone through the record. Admittedly, the respondent had joined the investigation and a Sota has been recovered from his possession. The injury attributed to him has been declared "Shajjah-e-Mudihah" under section 337-A(ii), P.P.C. Which is punishable upto maximum of five years. It has also been admitted by the learned counsel for the State that a cross-version on the statement of Mst. Jannat was registered regarding the same occurrence, however, the same was subsequently found to be false during investigation and the fact remains that three ladies Mst.
Jannat Bibi, Mst. Haseena and Mst. Jatti Mai received total number of twelve injuries on their person and out of those twelve injuries Mst. Haseena and Mst. Jatti Mai received one injury each on their head. The medical examination of the abovementioned ladies was conducted under the supervision of police on the same day of occurrence. These injuries have not been mentioned in the F. I.R. At all.
' That section 337-A(ii), P.P.C. Does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And it would not be in the interest of justice to send the respondent behind the bars only on technical grounds as he is likely to be released on bail soon after his arrest.
5. For what has been discussed above, I do not feel like curtailing the liberty of the respondent and, therefore, dismiss the instant petition for cancellation of bail.