Muhammad, the petitioner has sought for bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No. 118 dated 24-4-2002 under section 337-A(ii)/34, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Dajal, District Rajanpur.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that on 19-4-2002 at about 12-00 noon, he while armed with Sota alongwith his co-accused Zulfiqar with Sota and Kanir with Sota in furtherance of their common intention had caused injuries to the complainant Noor Ahmed and Muhammad Afsar.
3. The motive behind the occurrence is that he alongwith his co-accused wanted to avenge their insult caused about 3/4 months prior to the same.
4. The bail has been sought by him on the ground that he has been falsely roped in, that according to the F.I.R. He and his co --accused had inflicted injuries to the complainant while only one injury was found his person on his medical examination; that similar is the position of the injuries of the other injured Muhammad Afsar and this conflict in the version in the F.I.R, and the MLR of the injured persons renders the case against him as one of further inquiry; that he is behind the bars for the last about six months; and that he is previous non-convict.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition on the ground that injury was found on complainant's body as per his MLR.
6. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of record.
7. According to the F.I.R., the petitioner had inflicted-Sota blow hitting on the head of Noor Muhammad complainant and thereafter his co-accused Kamir inflicted two Sota blows to him which hit on his head in the middle and abdomen and Zulfiqar I inflicted him Sota blow hitting on the back I side of his head. On his medical examination, h one injury was found on his person. So, apparently there is a conflict in the narration I in the F.I.R. And the MLR of the complainant. While no specific injury of Muhammad Afsar is attributed to him. All these facts have rendered his case as one of further inquiry and so is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
8. Besides than this the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
9. The grant of bail in such-like cases is a rule and refusal an exception, while no exceptional circumstance is there to warrant refusal. He is stated to be behind the bars for the last about six months and previous non --convict.
10. 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 or Rs.50',000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction or the learned Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court.