NISAR AHMAD vs THE STATE

ORDER

' M.A. ZAFAR, Nisar Ahmad/petitioner is one of the accused in case F.I.R. No,435 of 2007 dated 25-7-2007 under sections 324, 148, 149, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Kunjah, District Gujrat, at the instance of Mazhar Iqbal/complainant.

2. According to the F.I.R. Imtiaz Ahmad, Nisar Ahmad (present petitioner), Ijaz Ahmad and Nasrullah, all armed with fire-arms and Nazar Muhammad with Sota, all of them in furtherance of their common intention launched a murderous assault and injured Sadaf Iqbal and Farhat Hussain, with their respective weapons. As per F.I.R., Imtiaz Ahmad fired, which hit Sadaf Iqbal on his left arm and second fire made by him hit Sardaf Iqbal on his right thigh, third fire was allegedly made by Nisar Ahmad, the present petitioner, hitting the left thigh of Sadaf Iqbal followed by another fire by Imtiaz Ahmad hitting on the left thigh of Sardaf Iqbal. Thereafter, Nasrullah alias Pappu, co-accused fired which hit Farhat Hussain on his left wrist and Nazar Muhammad gave a Sota blow hitting Mazhar Iqbal/complainant on his back.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that injuries on the persons of the accused persons namely Imtiaz Ahmad and Nisar Ahmad have been suppressed by the prosecution, cross version was recorded on 26-7-2007 at the instance of Muhammad Mansha, in which injuries on the person of Nisar Ahmad, the present petitioner, were attributed to Sadaf Hussain and Farhat Hussain (both injured of the present case) and similarly injury with the butt of rifle causing fracture of temporal bone of Imtiaz Ahmad co-accused was atributed to Farhat Hussain (injured of the present case) and Mazhar Hussain was attributed an injury on the right eye of Imtiaz Ahmad. Police also vide Zimni No,40 dated 8-11-2007 added section 452, P.P.C. In the cross version recorded against the complainant party. The co-accused of the present petitioner namely Ijaz Ahmad, Nasrullah and Nazar Muhammad have been granted bail by the learned Courts below and rule of consistency demands that petitioner may also be admitted to bail.

4. Learned Deputy Prosecutor-General, on the other hand, has opposed the grant of bail and submitted that case falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that there is only one injury on the left thigh of the person of Sadaf Iqbal (injured) and the same has been attributed to two accused persons namely Nisar Ahmad, the present petitioner and Imtiaz Ahmad, and similarly, there is sharp-edged injury on the right temporal region of Imtiaz Ahmad co-accused causing fracture, of temporal bone and three blunt weapon injuries on the person of Nisar Ahmad, the present petitioner. The said injuries have been suppressed in the F.I.R., which clearly suggest that occurrence has not taken place in a manner as alleged by the prosecution. No recovery has been effected from the petitioner and no crime empty has also been recovered from the spot, accused of cross version are on bail. Though the police has found the cross-version of the accused side to be false but the fact remains that two persons from the side of the accused were seriously injured and their injuries have not been explained by the prosecution in any manner whatsoever. It will be determined at the time of the trial, which party was aggressor. Prima facie, it appears to be a case of further enquiry within the meaning of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Benefit of doubt arising out if any can be given to an accused even at the bail stage and there is no cavil with the proposition that the law is not to be stretched in favour of the prosecution and bail cannot be withheld as a punishment. Thus, by allowing this petition the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate concerned.