' Muhammad Bakhsh and Muhammad Siddique/petitioners, who stand arrested in case F.I.R. No,132 of 2003 registered for offences under sections 337-A(I)(111)/ 337-F(1)(VD/379/342/148/149, P.P.C. At Police Station Shehar Farid, District Bahawalnagar, have sought their bail therein through this petition.
2. According to prosecution story as given in the F.I.R., 15 persons, including the petitioners, all armed with different weapons like guns, pistols, hatchets and sticks, had attacked Ghulam Haider and Muhammad Abbas, the brothers of Mst. Kausar Bibi/complainant, and one Ghulam Murtaza son of Amin, who were returning their home after earning their livelihood on 27-5-2003 at 8-30 p.m.
And passing through the street in front of the house of the petitioners, as a result of which the brothers of the complainant sustained injuries on their persons. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. That the accused had also taken away some articles and net cash of about Rs,7000 and a bicycle.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that it is a case of two versions with regard to the commission of offence. According to the learned counsel, Zahoor Ahmad, an accused in case F.I.R. No,132 of 2003, had also got registered F.I.R. No,93 of 2003 of even date at 11-00 p.m. With regard to the same occurrence. Copy of the said F.I.R. Has also been placed or the record as annexure 'C', according to which ten persons, while armed with fire-arm weapons had reached the house of the complainant party for their eviction and to take forcible possession of the said house, whereupon the occurrence had ensued because of the resistance made by the complainant, Muhammad Abbas, Ghulam Haider and Noor Muhammad, as a result whereof Muhammad Abbas, Ghulam Haider and Murtaza also sustained injuries and Noor 'Muhammad, father of the complainant, lost his life. It has been further contended that material facts have been suppressed by the complainant of F.I.R. No,132 of 2003; that the story narrated in F.I.R. No,93 of 2003 lodged by Zahoor Ahmed is dearer to truth; that the complainant party was the aggressor, as the place of occurrence is the house of the petitioners; that the injuries on the persons of the complainant party are not of serious nature. On these premises, it was urged that the case of the petitioners becomes that of further inquiry and as such, they are entitled to the grant of bail. Reliance in this respect has been placed upon Zafar Iqbal v. The State 1999 PCr.LJ 1840 and Shoaib Mahmood Butt v. Iftikhar-ul- Haq and 3 others 1996 SCM R 1845.
4-5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners on the grounds that the challan has been submitted. In the Court and it has to be determined at the conclusion of the trial as to which of the parties was aggressor; that it was a free fight; that the accused/ petitioners have been nominated in the F.I.R., which has lodged with promptitude and that the recoveries have been effected from the petitioners.
Therefore, they do not deserve the concession of bail.
6. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Keeping both the F.I.Rs, in juxtaposition, it, prima facie, emerges that the occurrence had taken place outside the house of the petitioners, the injuries caused to the complainant party of F.I.R.
No,132 of 2003 are not of such a nature, so as to keep the petitioners behind the bars during the conclusion of the trial. It is yet to be decided as to whose version is correct and whose story is nearer to the truth. In Zafar Iqbal's case 1999 PCr.LJ 1840, it was held that when there is a case of counter-version, it becomes a case of further inquiry and bail is to be granted in such case normally. Similarly, in Shoaib Mahmood Butt's case 1996 SCM R 1845, it was observed that in case of two counter versions arising from the same incident, such cases were held to be cases of further inquiry as contemplated by section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Moreover, the record reveals that although the accused of case F.I.R. No,132 of 2003 were alleged to be equipped with fire-arms and sharp-edged weapons (hatchets) yet there is no accusation of using these weapons upon the complainant party. According to police investigation and report, the complainant party of the instant F.I.R. Has been found to be aggressor. Considering all these facts and circumstances and the afore-referred precedents, I am of the view that prima" facie, the case of the petitioner falls in the domain of further inquiry, attracting the provisions of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Entitling them to the grant of bail.
8. In view of the above discussions, I allow this petition and admit the petitioners to bail, subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.