Sajid Ali petitioner through the instant petition seeks after arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.411 dated 10-10- 2002 under sections 324/148/149, P.P.C. Police Station, Mumtaz Abad, Multan.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case as contained in the F.I.R. Are that on 10-10-2002 at 11-30 a.m., the complainant Rana Muhammad Imran was present outside the Polling Station set up in Girls Middle School, Dera Muhammadi. His father Rana Shamshad, who is Nazim of the area was coming there to cast his vote. As soon as he entered the Polling Station, Muhammad Ibrahim alias Madni caught him from the collar and took him inside and also called his companions. In the meanwhile, Abdul Sattar inflicted a Danda blow at his head. Shahid (present petitioner) armed with hockey, Ghulam Mustafa armed with Sota, Waseetn with Hockey, Shafi armed with Danda, Tassawar armed with Danda and Jang Sher empty-handed also reached there: Besides than them 10/15 unknown persons also came there. Abdul Hakim and Saeed stepped towards his father to rescue him, thereupon, Ifassawar inflicted Sota blow to Hakim hitting at his head. Waseem inflicted hockey blow to Saeed on his head. In the meanwhile, many persons were attracted to the spot. They beseeched the accused and rescued them. Thereafter, he (complainant) alongwith others came to the Polling Camp and sat there. The accused then went away from there while extending threats. After about ten minutes of the same, from the back of the Polling Camp, Muhammad Ibrahim alias Madni armed with 22a-rifle, Abdul Sattar armed with .12-bore gun, Sajid armed with .12-bore gun and Ghulam Mustafa armed with .30-bore pistol came there. Muhammad Ibrahim alias Madni raised a Lalkara that they may hot be spared. Thereupon, Sajid made a straight fire hitting on his father's left shin. Abdul Sattar fired with his .12-bore gun hitting the right shin of his father and Muhammad Saeed, Muhammad Ibrahim with his rifle .222-bore fired at them but the same missed. The occurrence besides him was witnessed by Haji Maqbool and others.
The motive behind the occurrence is that father of the complainant had got a criminal case registered against Abdul Sattar and others. The accused had grudge over the same.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has been falsely roped in; that the story as narrated in the F.I.R. Is not correct and the occurrence has taken place in some other manner; that the complainant party have initiated the aggression and had injured their five persons including his ownself and they with mala fide intention have suppressed their injuries in the F.I.R.; that they had advanced their cross-version before the police but the police being in league with the complainant party due to their influence did not record it; that the police themselves have got three injured persons medically examined and on leis medical examination three injuries were found on his person; that it is yet to be determined that who was the aggressor and who was aggressed upon and that can be done only at the trial; that the injury attributed to the father of the complainant is on the non-vital part of his body; that there was not repetition of injury on his part which suggests that he had no intention to kill him, and that he is behind the bars. In support of the bail plea reliance has been placed upon:-- Muhammad Afsar v. The State 1994 SCM R 2051.
Jan Muhammad v. Haji Noor Jamal and another 1998 SCM R 500.
Shabbir and another v. The State 1997 PCr.LJ 112.
4. As against the same the learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for complainant has opposed the petition on the ground that he alongwith his co-accused while variously armed has formed an unlawful assembly and thereafter caused injuries to the father of complainant with .12 --bore gun at his shin of the left leg; that from the facts and circumstances of the case it is quite evident that he had no intention except to kill him and in such circumstances the application of section 324, P.P.C. Is rightly there; that medical examination of their side was conducted on 15-10-2002 i.e. After five days of the incident and no cross-version from their side was put to the police therefore, they cannot take benefit of their medical examination alone; and that this is a case of highhandedness on their part inasmuch as that he has not only participated in the first incident as mentioned in the F.I.R. And then in the second while armed with the lethal weapon and attacked the injured persons and in such circumstances, he is not entitled to bail. In support of the same reliance, has been placed upon:-- Muhammad Waqas v. The State 2002 SCMR 137.
Munir Ahmad and another v. The State 1997 SCM R 445.
Ali Qadar v. The State 1998 PCr.LJ 516.
5. I have carefully considered the contentions raised from both the sides with the help of available record.
6. Though the petitioner has been ascribed shot with .12-bore gun at the complainant's father's shin of the left leg but there has been appended with the petition copy of his Medical Report. The same shows that his examination was conducted on 15-10-2002 and therein three injuries were found on his person. It has been contended on his behalf that complainant patty had initiated aggression and in the same five persons from their side including his own himself were injured and the police did not get them medically examined in time but with a delay of about five days of the incident and that they had advanced their cross-version before the police but it has not been recorded. The copy of his medical examination shows that Muhammad Iqbal, S.-I. Of the concerned police station had got him medically examined. Similar is the position in respect of his co-accused Muhammad Ibrahim alias Madni. His medical report shows that he had two injuries on his person and his medical examination was conducted on the said date i.e. 15-10-2002. One Muhammad Wakeel, who is said to be from his side was medically examined on 10-10-2002 and he had an injury on his person and the same was declared as Shujja-i-Mudi'ah. The Medical Report of two other persons from their side have been shown to me and they are Muhammad Tasleem and Khan Muhammad.
They has three and five injuries respectively on their persons when they were medically examined.
There is no mention of these injuries in the F.I.R. I would further avoid to comment on this aspect of the case let it be prejudicial to, either of the parties at the trial. However, as said earlier that it has been contended that from their side cross-version was advanced but the police did not record the same.
7. Besides than this the injury attributes to him is on the non-vital part of the body of father of the complainant. There was no repetition on his part. Hence, his case is open to further inquiry. The mischief of sub--section (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This is amply attracted to his case. In this regard reference is made to "Muhammad Afsar v. The State" 1994 SCM R 2051, "Jan Muhammad v. Haji Noor Jamal and another" 1998 SCM R 500 and "Shabbir and another v. The State 1997 PCr.LJ 112 as regards the case-law cited from the side of the prosecution, with all respect to the same, the same is not aptly applicable to the present case for its distinguishable facts and circumstances than these cases, particularly in view of the injuries sustained by the side of the petitioner and their suppression in the F.I.R. There was no such position in those cases.
5. In this view of the matter, I find that case for his enlargement on bail has been made out. I, therefore, accept the petition and admit him to bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Ilaqa/Deputy Magistrate.