' Allegedly, the petitioner inflicted Thhurri' blow to Diyar Khan brother of the complainant, which landed on his head: At the instance of Zabat Khan, complainant, F.I.R. No,97 dated 3-8-2001 under section 337 A-II/34/336, P:P.C. Was registered at Police Station Rangoo, District Attock, against petitioner and others.
2. It was contended that no case is made out for the offences alleged against the petitioner. The prosecution story is totally false and baseless. The petitioner is previously non-convict. It is a counter version case as the accused in the said case also received injuries and examined themselves medically. Medico-legal reports have been annexed with the petition.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant, and learned counsel for the State, contrarily, opposed the bail, mainly on the. Ground that the challan has been submitted before the Court, charge has been framed and statement on one P.W. Has been recorded.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record medico-legal reports obtained by the alleged injured Diyar Khan, which shows that the injured first got himself medically examined from DHQ Hospital, Rawalpindi, on 3-8-2001. Thereafter he rushed to Islamabad Hospital' Complex Islamabad, purportedly on the same day. The perusal of Medico-legal report appears to be doubtful. It is strange to note that the date and hour of arrival of the injured has been shown as 3- 8-2001 whereas the number and date of police docket is 24-8-2001 and date of discharge is 15-8- 2001. Even otherwise the alleged injured was directed to be produced before the Court. He appeared and looked quite healthy as far, as the head injury was concerned though he pretended not to walk without help. Admittedly, the accused party also received injuries in the scuffle. It is therefore, yet to be determined as to which of the party was aggressor .
5. As regards the contention of the learned State counsel that the challan has been submitted, (large has been framed and statement of one P.W. Has been recorded, am of the view that there is no bar on the Court to decline bail to the accused, if otherwise he is entitled to the grant of bail, during the trial. The trial shall definitely take some-time but its duration cannot be predicted. There is no suggestion forthcoming from the prosecution that if enlarged on bail, accused would impede, or frustrate fair trial against him and he shall not be available to the Court. Withholding of bail as a measure of advance punishment will neither promote cause of justice nor object of law. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than six months. No useful purpose will be served by keeping him in the jail.
6. I would, accordingly admit the petitioner to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs,30,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.