GUL BACHA vs The STATE through Advocate General and another

' SHAH JEHAN KHAN AKHUNDZADA, J.---Having failed to obtain bail from the Courts below in case F.I.R. No, 971 dated 25-7-2012 under sections 324/34, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station, Charsadda, accused-petitioner Gul. Bacha has approached this Court for his release on bail through the instant petition.

2. Briefly the prosecution story vide F.I.R. Lodged by Mst.Mushtari complainant of the present case is, that on 25-7-2012 at 22-00 hours she along with other family members was present in the house when in the meanwhile Shah Masood, Maroof, Sajjad and Misbahullah sons of Subhanullah along with Gul Bacha duly armed with lethal weapons came there and started firing at them as a result of which she got hit and sustained injuries. Motive was stated to be the dispute over landed property. Besides the complainant, the occurrence was stated to be witnessed by the others who were present there.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case with their able assistance.

4. According to the F.I.R., it is an admitted position that there is a dispute between the parties over the landed property on which this incident has taken place. No doubt the accused-petitioner has been charged in the F.I.R. Along with his co-accused for collective firing at the complainant but it is yet to be seen that from whose shot the complainant was hit and sustained injuries. Moreover the other A aspect of the case is that Maroof Shah one of the accused in the present case has also lodged F.I.R. No,970 on the same day wherein besides other persons Fiaz son of the complainant of the present case has also been charged for effective firing upon the complainant party of that case wherein Subhanullah father Maroof Shah sustained injuries and subsequently died. So at this stage all these points cannot be properly thrashed out as it requires deeper appreciation of evidence to prove each assertion and that has to be scrutinized at the time of trial. So under these circumstances I am of the considered view that the instant case appears to be a case of counter version of F:I.R. No,970 registered on the same day where out of the same alleged incident, Subhanullah father of the four accused of the present case received firearm injuries and died later on. In the counter versions arising from the same incident, one narrated by the complainant in his F.I.R. And the other given by, the opposite party in his F.I.R., it is settled principle of law, accused involved therein are normally released on bail on the ground of further inquiry as contemplated under section 497(2), Cr. P. C. For the reason that the question as to which version is true and who is the aggressor and who has been aggressed upon is to be determined by the trial Court which is supposed to record, evidence and also to appraise the same in order to come to a final conclusion in this regard. At the stage of bail the above question requires further probe which entitles the accused petitioner to be concession of bail on the ground of further inquiry.

5. Thus for the foregoing reasons, this bail application is accepted and the accused-petitioner Gul Bacha is admitted to bail on furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees One Lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Charsadda who shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means.

' The above are the reasons of my short order announced on 10-10-2012.