At the outset the learned counsel for the petitioner has orally requested to allow him to correct the date of F.I.R. In the petition as 19-5-2002 instead of 19-6-2002. According to him, it was just a clerical mistake. The request has been granted. He has made the necessary correction in view of the Court with his signature.
2. Mittoo, the petitioner has sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.145 dated 19-5-2002 under section 337-A(i)(ii) read with section 34, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Muhammadpur, District Rajanpur.
3. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that on 19-5-2002 at about 6-45 p.m. He while armed with Sota, alongwith his co-accused Wahid Bakhsh with Sota, Rasool Bakhsh with Sota and Hazoor Bakhsh with Sota in furtherance of their common intention had beaten Ghulam Sarwar, the father of the complainant and Nabi Bakhsh, his brother.
4. The motive behind the occurrence is dispute over 'Watta' marriage.
5. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in with mala fide intention; that there is two days unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R.; that the role assigned to him in the F.I.R. Stands belied by the M.L.R. Of Ghulam Sarwar injured inasmuch as that he according to the F.I.R. Had inflicted Sota blow to him hitting on his right side of the head due to which bleeding started to him but in the M.L.R. No such injury was found on his (injured) body; and that no specific injury of Nabi Bakhsh has been attributed to him; that he was arrested on 9-6-2002 and is behind the bars since then; and that he is previous non-- convict.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition on the ground that he alongwith his co-accused in furtherance of their intention had beaten Ghulam Sarwar the father of the complainant and Nabi Bakhsh his brother with Sotas.
7. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. According to the F.I.R., he had caused Sota blow to injured Ghulam Sarwar hitting on his right side of the head. He had also given Sota blows to Nabi Bakhsh injured alongwith his co-accused hitting him on different parts of his body.
9. The Medico-legal Report of injured Ghulam Sarwar is before me. According to the same, one injury, which is abrasion 2 x 2 c.m. Skin deep on the left cheek was found on his medical examination. So apparently, there is some conflict in the narration of F.I.R. As regards his role in the commission of crime and the Medico-legal Report of the said injured.
10. No specific injury of Nabi Bakhsh is attributed to him. The above conflict in the F.I.R. And the Medico-legal Report of injured Ghulam Sarwar has rendered his case as one of further inquiry and so is covered under subsection (2) of suction 497, Cr.P.C.
11. He is stated to be behind the bars for the last about four months and the alleged offence also does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. He is also stated to be previous non-convict.
12. In these circumstances, I find him entitled to bail. The petition is, therefore, accepted and he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Ilaqa Magistrate/trial Court.