AMJAD ALI vs THE STATE and another

ORDER

' WAQAR HASSAN MIR, J.---The petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case F. I. R . No, 229/2009 dated 8- 5-2009 offence under section 324/34 registered with Police Station Sharqpur Sharif District Sheikhupura.

2. The version of the complainant as per F.I.R. Is that today i.e, on 8-5-2009 they arranged a public symposium of local MNA and many people including the complainant and his uncle were present there when soon after the departure of the MNA at about 7-00 p.m. Two persons namely Muhammad Arshad and Muhammad Amjad sons of Ashraf while armed with pistols all of a sudden came there and after raising Lalkara started firing whereby the fire shot made by Amjad Ali was hit to uncle of the complainant at thigh part of his left leg due to which he fell down and when the complainant came forward, the accused Muhammad Arshad gave a butt blow with his pistol, which hit the complainant on his head; hence this F.I.R.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that actually the complainant party is aggressor in this case as the complainant party on account of certain dispute regarding a house came at the premises and made assault, upon which, an application was moved to the local police, but the police did not pay any heed to the request of the petitioner, so he moved a petition under sections 22-A, 22-B, Cr.P.C. For registration of criminal case and despite direction of the learned Justice of Peace, the case was not registered; that cross version of the petitioner was already registered, but the same was got cancelled under the pressure of local MNA; that brother of the petitioner also filed a complaint case against the complainant's party wherein the learned Magistrate, after recording of cursory evidence, summoned the complainant party; that apart from the above, the injury attributed to the present petitioner vide MLC is " ghayr-jaifah mutalahimah" , falling under section 337-F(iii), P.P.C. For which the sentence of three years is provided; that the injury attributed to the petitioner is on non-vital part and not repeated, therefore, section 324, P.P.C. Was not constituted; that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last about 10 months.

4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Prosecutor General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant submits that challan under section 324, P.P.C. Was submitted, therefore, the learned trial Court framed the charge under section 324/34, P.P.C. And the case has been fixed for the prosecution evidence; that examinations-in-chief of the P.Ws. Were recorded on 24-11-2009 and still the accused on the pretext of engaging a counsel are not cross-examining the P.Ws. And now the next date of hearing is 24-4-2010; the recovery has been effected from the petitioner; he is a criminal record-holder as 16 F.I.Rs, have been registered against him; that there is no contradiction and incompatibility between the medical and ocular account and all the P.Ws.

Supported the version of the complainant; further that due to the injury sustained by Liaqat his leg was fractured.

5. Heard. Record perused.

6. As the accused party had filed a private complaint against the complainant's party and after recording of cursory evidence in the complaint, the complainant party has been summoned as accused coupled with the fact that vide MLC the injury attributed to the petitioner falls under section 337-F(iii), P.P.C. For which sentence provided is three years and that he has not repeated the fire and he is behind the bars for the last about ten months, therefore, the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry and probe into his guilt. Consequently, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.