GHULAM SARWAR Versus State

ORDER

Ghulam Sarwar has sought his pre‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.71 registered at Police Station Sadar Sadiqabad on 20‑3‑2004 for offences under sections 324/337‑A(iii), P.P.C.

2. Succinctly, the relevant facts per F.I.R. are that on 17‑3‑2004 at about 5‑30 p.m. the complainant, his brother Mazhar Ayub and grandfather Muhammad Nawaz were sitting outside their house in the Dera when they heard some noise. They went to the house and saw that Ghulam Sarwar‑petitioner, along with Ghulam Asghar and Ghulam Haider, was abusing Mst. Manzooran mother of the complainant. The complainant forbade the accused from abusing and, thus, the situation deteriorated. Thereafter, the petitioner gave a stick blow on the head of Mazhar Ayub, which caused fracture.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that, in fact, complainant party was aggressor and had caused injuries to Mst. Shahnaz Bibi, Mst. Bharawan and Ghulam Haider, sister, mother and brother of the petitioner; that the injury attributed to the petitioner was simple in nature and did not caused any fracture, as is evident from‑the facts:‑‑

(i) that Mazhar Ayub appeared in examination on the next date of receipt of injury, i.e. 18‑3‑2004; and

(ii) that according to report issued by the Neuro Surgeon, Sheikh Zayed Hospital, Rahimyar Khan, the injury did not result into fracture of the bone.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State have opposed this application and have argued that the petitioner was specifically named in the promptly lodged F.I.R. ; that the petitioner actively participated in the occurrence by causing an injury on the head of Mazhar Ayub P.W.; that the opinion of .the Medical Officer was found to be correct by the Medical Board; and that section 337‑A(iii), P.P.C. attracts the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and have also gone through the record of the case.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner has joined the investigation; a single injury is attributed to the petitioner, which, according to the report of the Medical Officer, caused fracture of the bone. However, a perusal of the record reveals that on the very next date after the receipt of injury, Mazhar Ayub P.W. appeared in the Matriculation Examination. He also appeared and took the exam., on 20‑3‑2004. On the same day of occurrence, i.e. 17‑3‑2004, Ghulam Haidar, brother of the petitioner, Mst. Shahnaz Bibi, sister of the petitioner, and Mst. Bharawan, mother of the petitioner, were got examined by the Medical Officer through police. The above‑noted three persons had received injuries on their persons according to the medico‑legal reports. But these injuries were suppressed in the F.I.R. The cross version was also recorded by the police on the same date, i.e. 17‑3‑2004, on the statement of Ghulam Haidar.

7. Taking the above‑noted circumstances into consideration, I am inclined to confirm the ad interim bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 12‑4‑2004 subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of rupees fifty thousand with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court within two weeks.

H.B.T./G‑118/L Bail confirmed