MUHAMMAD ALI Versus THE STATE

ORDER

Petitioner is accused of cross‑version recorded on the statement of Muhammad Sarfraz on 11‑2‑2001. According to cross version, Shaukat Ali, Zaheer Ahmad, Nadeem Muhammad Ali, Ilyas and Arif criminally trespassed into the factory and started beating Safdar Iqbal and from there took him to his house by dragging. The complainant alongwith others also chased them where Ilyas gave a blow with broken bottle into belly of Safdar while Shaukat started giving beating with chain of the motor cycle Safdar fell down on the ground and in that condition apart from Nadeem Muhammad Ali and Arif also gave blows to Safdar. The injured was, then taken to the hospital where he later succumbed to his injuries. Earlier to that F.I.R. No.82 under section 324, P.P.C. was registered on the statement of Shaukat Ali, father of the present petitioner on 10‑2‑2001 with Police Station Mughalpura, Lahore.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was empty‑handed, no specific, injury is attributed to him qua the deceased, only allegation against him is that he gave beating to the deceased but with which weapon the complaint is silent it being a case of cross‑version the matter is one of further inquiry and it will be determined at the trial as to which party was the aggressor.

3. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner was a member of unlawful assembly and the facts narrated in the F.I.R. No. 82 dated 10‑2‑2001 are totally incorrect, in fact the deceased was taken away to his house and there he was given beating.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is accused of cross‑version. His father is complainant of F.I.R. No.82 of 2001 registered against the complainant party of cross‑version. It determined at the trial as to which party was the aggressor. Though allegedly the petitioner caused injuries on the person of the deceased but with which weapon, the answer is in the negative. Challan has been submitted in Court. Petitioner is behind the bar since 8‑3‑2001. At the present case of the petitioner is one of further inquiry within the meaning of subsection (2) to section 497. Cr.P.C. This petition is accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rupees one lac with two sureties each in the like amount' to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

S.M.A.H./M‑1442/L Bail granted.