QURBAN HUSSAIN vs THE STATE

ORDER

Heard.

2. Qurban Hussain son of Hussain Bakhsh, caste Syed, resident of Chak No,5/RMK, Tehsil Dera Khan, District Bhakkar, petitioner has applied for his pre-arrest bail in the case bearing F.I.R. No,98 of 2003, dated 13-4-2003 which stands registered against him and his co-accused under sections 337- F(v)/337-A(i)/337L(ii)/148/149/105, P.P.C., with Police Station Saddar, District Bhakkar.

3. The allegation against the petitioner was that on 13-4-2003 at about 7-00 p.m. When Sabir Hussain complainant alongwith his wife Parveen Kausar, his son Muhammad Shahzad, Ghulam Shabbir son of Ghulam Muhammad was cutting the crop of grass, the petitioner, Muhammad Nadim and Muhammad Hussain armed with sickles came at the spot and on a claim over the crop a quarrel between the parties started and on raising Lalkara by the petitioner, Muhammad Nadim inflicted a sickle blow on the front of head of Sabir Hussain and the second blow inflicted by him had hit on the back of Sabir Hussain while the petitioner inflicted sickle blows on wrist and left thumb of the complainant.

' Meanwhile Parveen Kausar wife of the complainant intervened whereupon Muhammad Hussain co-accused inflicted a sickle blow on the little finger of left hand while the remaining accused were raising Lalkara, even the clothes of Mst. Kausar were torn. So at the instance of Sabir Hussain the above said case was registered.

4. While refusing bail to the petitioner the learned Magistrate observed that though the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Yet the accused are . Not entitled for concession of bail at such an early date and the same was refused on 8-5-2003.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the prosecution case is false; that the petitioner is owner and in possession of the land where the occurrence took place; that the injuries attributed to the petitioner are simple in nature; that the petitioner is a Government servant and previous non- convict and that the case against the petitioner does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, he is entitled for the concession of bail.

6. On the other hand learned State Counsel opposed this petition for bail and submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for the grant of bail.

7. So far as the allegation against the petitioner is concerned he inflicted-injuries on the non-vital parts of body. He is no more required by the police for any further investigation. The learned Trial Court also observed that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

8.Therefore, in view of above circumstances Qurban Hussain son of Hussain Bakhsh petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.