MUHAMMAD SATAN Versus STATE

ORDER

The petitioners seek bail for the offences under sections 337-A(ii) and 337-H(ii), P.P.C. registered at Police Station Saddar, Narowal vide F.I.R. No.86, dated 23-5-1994.

2. Succinctly the facts of the case are that on 22-5-1994 in the morning first informant Muhammad Afzal and his brother Muhammad Amin were going to nearby fields to answer the call of the nature. They had yet to reach the destination when they were intercepted by the accused who told them that they would not let them alive for they had refused to leave the village. 'This threat was followed by fireshots but none was injured. On the same day at about 5-30 p.m. when the complainant party was present near their village, the accused launched an attack hitting Muhammad Afzal with the butt of the rifle. In the meantime Muhammad Ismail reached the scene of occurrence who was also hit on the head by the accused in the like manner. Muhammad Bashir accused also reported the matter to the police on 8-6-1994 giving an altogether a different version fixing upon the whole responsibility on the complainant side.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in fact it was the complainant party who initiated the aggression. He seeks support from medico legal certificate which shows 8 injuries on the person of Muhammad Bashir. He places reliance upon Mushtaq Ishaque v. State 1988 -Cr. L J 836. He further submits that even otherwise the injury on the person of Muhammad Ismail which has been declared as Shajjah-i-Hashimah, has not been specifically attributed to the petitioners. He places reliance upon Muhammad Akram and 2 others v. State 1980 P Cr. L J 653.

4. Learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the case against the petitioners falls under the prohibition contained subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. therefore, they do not deserve the concession of bail.

5. I have heard both the learned counsel and have perused the record. I am of the opinion that there is much force in the arguments of the petitioners' counsel. Admittedly Muhammad Bashir also received the injuries during the occurrence and it is yet to .be determined which party was to be blamed for initiating the aggression. Likewise the fact who out of the four accused caused the relevant injury will remain shrouded in mystery until some evidence is brought on the record during the trial.

6. In this view of the matter the case against the petitioners is a case of further inquiry. Therefore, they are allowed bail in the sum of Rs.30,000 with F one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Narowal.

N.H.Q./M-1760/L Bail allowed.