RANA MUHAMMAD SALIM Versus UMAR HAYAT
ORDER
Rana Muhammad Salim petitioner has moved this petition for cancellation of bail allowed to Umar Hayat and Mubarik Ali alias Makha respondents by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, in a case under sections 148, 342, 353 and 307/149, P.P.C.
2. The prosecution version was that on 7‑6‑1986 at about 10‑30 p.m. the petitioner, who was then Incharge Police Post Jaranwala, alongwith Abid Hussain and Liaqat Ali Constable went to the house of Mubarik alias Makha respondent to cause his arrest in case F.I.R. 202, dated 7‑6‑1986, under section 18 of Ordinance VII of 1979 and section 506 of the P.P.C. The petitioner asked Abdul Aziz and Feroze Din who were sitting on the Thara of the house, to produce Mubarik as a case had been registered against him. Feroze Din told him that Makha respondent would not be produced before him, but he insisted upon his production, upon which Feroze Din raised a Lalkara that policemen should not be spared. Thereafter, both the respondents and co‑accused Muhammad Sharif, armed with Khanjars, Abdul Khaliq and Abdul Razzaq, armed with carbines, and Abdul Aziz, armed with a hatchet, came out of the house of aforesaid Muhammad Sharif raising Lalkara and attacked the petitioner. The part attributed to Mubarik was that he gave two Khanjar blows on the right thigh of the petitioner. Umar Hayat respondent is alleged to have given two Khanjar blows hitting his wrist and left arm. During the occurrence Liaqat Ali constable, who tried to rescue the petitioner, also suffered injuries at the hands of the accused persons. Umar Hayat respondent is alleged to have given Khanjar blow on the back of left flank and Makha respondent gave him blow with his Khanjar on the left shoulder.
3. The respondents were admitted to pre‑arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad. . The petitioner moved Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2805/13 of 1986 for cancellation of bail, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 11‑11‑1986. In the said order it was observed that as per medico‑legal report of the petitioner injury No. 2 on the right wrist and injuries Nos. 1 and 5 on the right thigh were grievous and had been specifically attributed to the present respondents, therefore, they were not entitled to the extraordinary concession of pre‑arrest bail. After their bail was cancelled by this Court, the respondent moved an application for bail after arrest in the Sessions Court which came up for hearing before the same Additional Sessions Judge, who, vide order dated 29‑3‑1987 admitted them to bail, inter alia, on the ground that none of the injuries of Muhammad Saleem petitioner was on the vital part and 'injuries Nos. 1 and 5, as per record, are still kept under observation and naturally they shall be treated to be simple'. This finding was contrary to the observation made by this Court in the order, dated 11‑11‑1986 that injuries 1 and 5 on the right thigh were declared grievous. This observation was based on a note, dated 30‑9‑1986 on the medico‑legal report of the petitioner. By order, dated 23‑6‑1987 the, record of the bail application was sent for from the Sessions Court to find out on what material the observation of the learned Additional Sessions Judge was based. Nothing could be found on the record, on which the Additional Sessions Judge was directed to submit a report indicating on what material his aforesaid observation was based. He has reported that it was a bona fide mistake on his part.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a certificate, dated 9‑9‑1986 of the Medical Superintendent, District Headquarters Hospital, Faisalabad, to contend that the injuries attributed to the respondents were of very serious nature, therefore, there was absolutely no justification for the grant of bail, particularly when the High Court had, in view of the nature of injuries, already cancelled the pre‑arrest bail allowed to them by the same Court. It is further submitted that the respondents are very influential persons and after their release on bail they are constantly putting pressure on the P.Ws. to win them over.
Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that in a judicial inquiry it has been held that the case is false and that the injuries attributed to the respondents do not fall within the ambit of section 320 of the P . P . C . and are simple in nature. He has cited some case‑law in support of the last mentioned contention.
5. I have considered the submissions made at the bar in the light of material available on the record. Medical Certificate, dated y‑9‑1986 of the Medical Superintendent, District Headquarters Hospital, Faisalabad, placed on the file, is to the effect that cutting of the sciatic nerve has resulted in complete loss of sensation in the right leg alongwith partial loss of muscle tone of the same leg. The Medical Superintendent has further opined that the injuries though not fatal, the injured will have to suffer a permanent loss of sensation and partial loss of function in the right leg for the rest of his life. The injury on the right leg is, therefore, grievous within the meaning of clause 'Fifthly' of section 320 of the P.P.C. The Inquiry Magistrate has observed that the police has set up this case as a counter‑blast. I would not like to make any observation about this opinion lest it may prejudice the case of either party. However, the fact remains that injuries 1, 2 and 5 were of a serious nature which could not be self‑suffered or caused by a friendly hand. It is also pertinent to mention that the bail of the respondents was cancelled by this Court on 11‑11‑1986 whereafter they remained absconders for quite long arid were arrested on 17‑3‑1987. In the circumstances, I feet inclined to the view that it was not a fit case for the grant of bail. Consequently, this petition is allowed and the bail of the respondents is cancelled. They shall be taken into custody forthwith and sent to jail.
S.A./M‑810/L Bail cancelled.