' Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset has stated that he withdraws the instant petition to the extent of petitioner No,2, Zafar Hussain and petitioner No,3, Dilbar Hussain. The same, therefore, is dismissed to their extent.
2. Petitioner No,1, Mazhar Hussain has sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,8, dated 15-1-2002 under sections 324/334/336/452/ 148/149, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Sadar Kabirwala, District Khanewal. Later on, the police have added section 109, P.P.C. In the same.
3. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that on 15-1-2002 at about 1-30 p.m. Muhammad Zafar, Dilbar alias Dilloo, Mazhar, Hazara, Ajmal alias Ajji and Ahmad Bakhsh armed with hatchets had caught hold of Mst. Safia Bibi, the daughter of the complainant. They (complainant's side) tried to intervene, but the accused raised Lalkara that if anyone came near them will be done to death. In their view Muhammad Zafar had cut her right leg with hatchet and Dilbar had cut her right arm with hatchet. Ahmad Bakhsh took her amputed arm and threw it away. Mazhar inflicted hatchet blow to her on her left ankle. On seeing the witnesses coining to the spot, they left her and went away with their weapons.
4. The motive behind the occurrence is that Hazara despite divorce to her (Mst. Safia Bibi) wanted to remarry her. They had committed the above act at the instance of Waryam and Shaukat.
5. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in; that only one injury to injured Mst. Safia Bibi at her left ankle has been attracted to him; that the said injury attributed to him was not on the vital part of the body and so the offence under sections 324/334/336 is not attributed against him; that the question of his vicarious liability for these offences is to be gone into at the trial; that motive is also not ascribed to him directly; that it has been found during the investigation by the D.S.P., Saddar Khanewal that he was not present at the spot and if at all he is in anyway connected with the alleged crime, the same may be by way of abetment, but no overt act towards the injured Mst. Safia Bibi; that he is behind the bars for the last about one year and not a previous convict; and that his trial as yet has not commenced.
6. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail petition on the ground that he is named in the F.I.R.; that he has been specifically attributed injury with hatchet to injured Mst.
Safia Bibi on her left ankle and from the same it is clear that he had actively participated in the occurrence; and that it is a heinous crime inasmuch as that the leg and arm of the injured lady were amputed by his co-accused. He, however, has conceded that the D.S.P., Saddar, Khanewal in his investigation has found him not to be present at the spot at the relevant time and this has so been mentioned in his case Diary No,19, dated 7-3-2002..
7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.
8. Allegedly he has caused hatchet blow to injured Mst. Safia Bibi on her left ankle. He did not repeat the blow to her. The said injury attributed to him is on non-vital part of her body.
9. The motive is not directly relatable to him. Besides than this Muhammad Javed, D.S.P., Saddar, Khanewal in his case Diary No,19, dated 7-3-2002 has mentioned that Zafar and Dilbar co-accused with their hatchets at the instance of their real brother Hazara and Mazhar (petitioner) after having armed themselves had trespassed into, the house of Haq Nawaz complainant and had amputed the right arm and right leg of Mst. Safia Bibi while the presence of remaining accused at the relevant time has not been found to be there.
10. In view of these facts, particularly, the single injury having been assigned to him to the injured iady and that too. On her non vital part of the body, it is yet to be seen that if he can be held liable for the alleged offence and so his case is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
Requiring further inouiry into his guilt.
11. He is stated to be behind the bars for the last about one year and a previous non-convict. His trial statedly as yet has not commenced.
12. In these circumstances, I find him entitled to bail. The petition, therefore, is accepted and he is admitted to bail provided he furnish bail Bond in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Khanewal/ trial Court.