AHMAN Versus THE STATE

ORDER

Ahmad petitioner has moved this petition for bail in a case registered against him and his sons lqbal, Nawaz and Aslam under sections 148, 302 and 307/149, P.P.C.

2. The facts of the case need not be repeated as the same have been detailed in my order dated 25th March, 1987 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 754‑B of 1987, filed by aforesaid Iqbal, Nawaz and Aslam. It may, however, be mentioned that the role attributed to the petitioner was that he gave a Phhaura blow on the head of Muhammad Bakhsh deceased while his co‑accused Iqbal gave a hatchet blow from the wrong side on his head, Nawaz gave a hatchet blow on the buttocks and Aslam gave a Sota blow on the forehead.

The motive alleged by the prosecution was that a Panchayat had passed a decree of Rs. 300 in favour of the accused persons and against the deceased, on account of which there was an exchange of abuses between them a few hours prior to the occurrence.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that .the prosecution version is absolutely false and in fact the occurrence took place when the accused persons went to the house of the deceased and demanded the decretal amount from him, over which he got annoyed and gave hatchet blows on the heads of co‑accused Iqbal and Nawaz and in the meantime the petitioner reached the spot and gave phhaura blow to the deceased in order to rescue his sons. It is submitted that this case of the petitioner is at par with that of co‑accused lqbal, Nawaz and Aslam, who have been admitted to bail by this Court. The learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail.

4. I have given my careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Nawaz and Iqbal co‑accused were medically examined on the same day. Iqbal had an incised wound 10 cm x 4 cm x bone cut on the right side of the head amputating the right car.

This injury was declared grievous. Nawaz accused had an incised wound on the right side of the head which was kept under observation and subsequently declared simple in nature. These injuries have been suppressed in the FIR, Apparently, the case of the petitioner is at par with that of the accused who have been released on bail by this Court. Consequently, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing security in the sum of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Jhang.

M.Y.H./A‑286/L Bail granted.