' Muhammad Asghar son of Atta Muhammad seeks his post arrest bail in the case F.I.R. No. 535 of 2003 under section 337-A(iii), 34, P.P.C. Registered at Police "Statiok Hujra Shah Muqeem, District Okara on 8-10-2003.
2. The allegation against the petitioner as alleged by the complainant in her F.I.R. Was that she was present in her house on 30-9-2003 and her husband was not available; that all of a sudden the petitioner and his accomplice Allah Ditta came there; the petitioner was armed with a pistol and raised a Lalkara that they should be taught a , lesson for having insulted the women folk; that Asghar caused a blow with the Butt of his pistol causing a fracture on her nasal bone; that her noise attracted Tajammal Taj and Ansar Ali who witnessed the occurrence; on seeing the witnesses the accused persons made good there escape. According to the F.I.R. Motive was that a few days ago the complainant had an altercation with the wife of the petitioner and due to this incident the complainant had been attacked. Consequently the instant F.I.R. Was recorded.
3. The petitioner was arrested on 15-4-2003. He applied for his post arrest bail which was declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Depalpur vide his order dated 11-11-2003. Hence this petition.
4. Ch. Muhammad Yaqub Sidhu, the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his plea for bail has argued that the incident did not occur in the manner as stated in the F.I.R.; that the petitioner happens to be brother-in-law (husband's brother) of the complainant; that during the course of investigation it has conclusively been proved that the complainant and the petitioner's wife grappled with each other during an altercation and in fact the petitioner intervened, trying to separate them, as a result of which the complainant suffered an accidental injury when she struck her head against a cart standing nearby; that no recovery of pistol as alleged in the F.I.R. Has been effected from the petitioner; that there was a delay of eight days in lodging the F.I.R. And the reason advanced for the said delay in the F.I.R. Is not convincing at all. Finally he argued that an insignificant incident between two women has been converted into a serious happening and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case.
5. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the grant of bail.
According to him the nasal bone of the petitioner has been fractured and the injury attributed to the, petitioner falls under section 337-A(iii) which is punishable with ten years imprisonment attracting the prohibitory clause of section 497 (1), Cr.P.C. According to him the material available with the prosecution sufficiently connects him with the crime and he is not entitled to the concession of bail.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the leamed counsel for the parties at length.
7. On Court's query S.-I., Muhammad Iqbal who has brought the record has stated that in the investigation the Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that it was a sudden fight between two women and that the injury suffered by the complainant was accidental as claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I also notice that there is a delay of eight days in lodging the F.I.R.
The admitted position is that the parties are closely related which fact surprisingly does not find mention in the F.I.R. The culpability of the petitioner needs further enquiry as contemplated by section 497(2), Cr .P .0 Accordingly I allow this petition and admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.30,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.