Ghulam Qadir and Nazir Ahmad petitioners through the instant petition seek after arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.59 dated 2-5-2002 under sections 337-A(i)(i.e), 337---F(i)(ii)(vi), 337-L(ii), 334/342/148/149, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Ahmadyar.
2. Briefly facts of the case as contained in the F.I.R. Are that on 29-4-2002, Allah Yar, the maternal uncle of the complainant Ghulam Farid was going to the land of one Muhammad Ali on tractor No.2367/BNC to take thrasher therefrom. He (complainant) and Muhammad Ali were following him.
He (Allah Yar) when reached near the house of Dilawar, etc., Noor Ahmad, Muhammad Sabir, Ghulam Qadir, Ali Sher and Nazir Ahmad stopped him. They brought him down from the tractor and took him in front of their house abusing and giving him beating. Dilawar raised Lalkara that he be taught a lesson for demanding money from them. Thereupon, Ali Sher inflicted him Sota blow hitting on his left thigh. He fell down due to same. Noor Ahmad cut his left ear with knife when he was lying on the ground. Muhammad Sabir inflicted him dagger blow hitting on his nose. Noor Ahmad inflicted him knife blow hitting on his nose and between the eyes. Ghulam Qadir inflicted him hatchet blow hitting on the right hand. Nazir Ahmad inflicted him Sota blow hitting on his left arm. Nazir then inflicted him Sota blow on his left arm. He again inflicted him Sota blow hitting on his left thigh. The accused then inflicted him blows one after the other with their respective weapons on the different parts of his body. He (complainant) and Muhammad Ali when challenged them, Ali Sher and Nazir Ahmad brought out rifle and 12-bore gun respectively from their house and threw away the Sotas. One Farzand son of Haji Qandar Ali beseeched them and rescued him (Allah Yar).
The motive behind the occurrence is that Allah Yar had lent ks.40,000 to the accused. He had demanded back the same many a times. The accused in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly formed then injured him seriously.
3. It has been contended on their behalf that they have been falsely roped in; that motive as mentioned in F.I.R. Is absolutely incorrect while the matter of fact is that injured Allah Yar is a bad character who with nefarious design had gone to their house and had teased their womenfolk there and per chance at that time their co-accused namely Muhammad Sabir and Noor Ahmad were present there who had given him beatings; that they were not present at the spot and have been roped m to widen the net; that the injuries attributed to them are on non-vital parts of the body of the injured; that no grievous injury is attributed to them, so the question of their vicarious liability will be gone into at the time of trial; that mere heinouneness of offence is no ground to refuse them bail; and that they are behind the bars for the last about 8 months and are previous non-convicts. In support of the bail plea reliance has been placed upon the cases of:-- Muhammad Siddiq v. The State 2001 PCr.LJ 852-Lahore: Nasir Mahmood Khan v. The State 1985 PCr. LJ 159-Quetta; Muhammad Rafiq v. The State 2001 PCr.LJ 1602-Lahore; Abdul Majeed and 2 others v. State 1998 PCr. LJ 1792-Lahore; Iftikhar Ahmad @ Sahiba v. The State 2001 PCr.LJ 1615-Lahore; Mansha Khan and others v. The State 1977 SCMR 949.
4. On the other hand the learned State Counsel has opposed the petition on the ground that they are named in the F.I.R.; that they have specifically been attributed injuries to the injured Allah Yar; that motive is also ascribed to them; that the story of having entered into the house of accused is made up one to create a defence; that this is a case of merciless beatings and the injured sustained as many as 25 injuries on his person and out of these one was amputation of his left ear and the cut of nose; that offence does fall within the prohibitory clause of section 491(1), Cr.P.C; that each criminal case is to be adjudged on it's own facts and circumstances, therefore, - the authorities referred to by their side are not applicable to their case in view of its above distinguishable facts and circumstances than those cases; and that challan has been submitted in Court and conclusion of trial is not very far of.
5. I have considered the submission made from both the sides with the help of available record.
6. The petitioners are named in the F.I.R., they have been specifically attributed injuries to the injured Allah Yar. It is like this that Ghulam Qadir (petitioner No. 1) has inflicted him hatchet blow hitting on the back of his feet and right hand. Nazir Ahmad (petitioner No.2) has repeatedly inflicted him Sota blows hitting on his left arm and thigh. Not only this but they also inflicted him injuries with their respective weapons again on the various parts of his body. The complainant and Muhammad Ali P.W. When challenged them, he (Nazir Ahmad) and Ali Sher co-accused brought out 12-bore gun and rifle respectively from their house and they threw away Sotas and raised Lalkara that whosoever came near will be dealt with in the same way. There were twenty-five injuries found on the person of the injured on his medical examination. So, it is a case of merciless beating to him.
The amputation of his left ear was also made. The same attracts an offence falling under section 334, P.P.C. And is covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. The challan has been submitted in Court and trial has commenced. It is settled proposition in law that each criminal case is to be adjudged in the background of its own facts and circumstances. The authorities referred to by their side are not aptly applicable to their case for its distinguishable facts and circumstances than those cases. In one of those cases amputation of ear was there.
7. So, they on the basis of the material available on record are prima facie connected with the alleged offence. In these circumstances, I do not find them entitled to bail at this stage. This petition therefore, is dismissed.
8. However, learned trial Court is directed to conclude their trial as expeditiously as possible under intimation to D.R.(J) of this Court.