ABDUL RAZZAQ and 3 others vs THE STATE

ORDER

' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Through this petition under sections 497/498, Cr.P.C., the petitioners seek bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No, 230, dated 10-11-2004, registered under sections 337- A(ii)/337-F(i), P.P.C. At Police Station Thingi District Vehari oil the statement of Mohabbat Ali.

2. Briefly the facts are that on 9-11-2004 at about 6.30 p.m., Mohabbat Ali complainant along with his brother namely Irshad was going on his motorcycle to their house. When they reached near their Bhaitak'. Muhammad Safarash, armed with sota and Abdur Razzaq, Abdus Sattar, Muhammad Khan, petitioners armed with sotas; Mukhtar Ahmad petitioner armed with hatchet, were already present there. Abdus Sattar said that they would not let them to make the wall straight. The complainant replied him that the soling was straight, and there was no hindrance as it was their wall which theyintended to make straight.

' Thereafter, suddenly, Muhammad Safrash inflicted sota blow on the left side of the head of the complainant and Abdul Razzaq petitioner also gave sota blow hitting on the little finger of his left hand. The remaining accused after encircling the complainant threatened him with dire consequences. On the hue and cry, Muhammad Iqal and Shafqat Ali witnesses came there who rescued the complainant from the clutches of the accused persons whereupon the accused persons with their respective weapons of offence went away.

3. The motive behind the occurrence was alleged that the accused persons by force did not allow the complainant to make his wall straight and on his refusal, they had injured the complainant for nothing. Hence, this case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that only Abdul Razzaq petitioner No,1 has been attributed injury on the little finger of left hand of the victim falling within the purview of section 337-A(i), P.P.C. Which is bailable offence while Abdus Sattar, Mukhtar Ahmad and Muhammad Khan petitioners though were present at the spot yet they had not caused any injury to the victim or any of the P.Ws. It is further contended that Muhammad Safarash one of the accused had also received injury from the hands of the complainant party and according to the medical report the said injury falls within the purview of section 337-A(iii), P.P.C., and that on 18-1-2005, on the direction of the Justice of the Peace cross-version was recorded, hence it is a case of two versions and which version is the correct one is yet to be determined.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant opposes this application on the ground that the petitioners are named in the F.I.R. With specific_ roles while it is a case of bail before arrest which is meant to protect the innocent citizens and as the petitioners are vicariously liable of the occurrence, they are not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with due care and caution. Allegedly, Abdul Razzaq petitioner while armed with sota had inflicted injury on the little finger of the left hand of the victim falling within the purview of section 337-A(i), P.P.C. Which is bailable. The remaining petitioners have not been attributed any injury to the victim or any of the P.Ws. Though they were armed with sotas. In such circumstances, chances of false implication of the petitioners in the present case cannot be ruled out as there is tendency in the society to involve maximum number of family members of the opponents by widening the net.

7. Even otherwise, Muhammad Safarash one of the accused allegedly received injury from the hands of the complainant side as well which injury falls within the purview of section 337-A(iii), P.P.C. But this injury has been suppressed by the complainant and cross-version has also been recorded. Prima facie it appears that the complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands.

Moreover, an application was moved to District Coordination Officer, Vehari (certified copy of which has been produced), by the complainant in which he levelled allegation that Medical Officer RHC Chak No,56/WB Tehsil and District Vehari had demanded illegal gratification for issuance of medical certificate and only after his palm was greased he issued the same. No authenticity can be given to the medical certificate which as per showing of the complainant was obtained by him after making illegal gratification. Furthermore, the circumstances, show that the occurrence had taken place all of a sudden without any premeditation and whether the petitioners had shared common intention with the co-accused is the question of further inquiry. Hence, this application is accepted and ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners vide order, dated 1-8- 2005 is hereby confirmed subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Judicial/Ilaqa Magistrate.