MUHAMMAD AMIN Versus STATE

ORDER

Being named as one of the accused in case F.I.R. No.400/92, dated 11-8-1992 registered at Police. Station Noor Shah, Distract Sahiwal under sections 324/337-A(ii), 337-F(ii)/379/427/148/149, P.P.C. Muhammad Amin, the petitioner, has moved this Court under section 497/498, Cr.P.C. for his release on bail, the same request having been refused to him by the learned Sessions Judge, Sahiwal vide his order, dated 24-7-1993.

2. The case of the prosecution is that Ghulam Nabi armed with a rifle, Amin armed with .12 bore gun, Noor, Mazhar, Bhai Khan, Murtaza and Zia armed with Sotas forcibly entered the house of the complainant, where he was sleeping alongwith his son Muhammad Ashfaq, Muhammad Ismail and Muhammad Ashraf P.Ws. The boundary wall of the house of the complainant was demolished by the accused with their tractor. Noor, Mazhar, Bhai Khan and Murtaza caused injuries to Ashfaq P.W. with Sotas, Zia and Rana caused injuries to Ismail with their Sotas. Ashraf suffered injuries at the hand of Hassan Ali with a Sota. In the meanwhile Nazar Muhammad also reached the spot and suffered fire-arm injury on his chest caused by Muhammad Amin, petitioner, with a .12 bore gun. The accused had removed forcibly articles lying in the Ihata of the complainant.

The motive for this occurrence is a previous litigation between the parties in respect of the Ihata No.138.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the case of the petitioner is at par with his co-accused who have since been released on bail by the learned trial Court. He, therefore, is also entitled to be released on bail on the point of rule of consistency. It was submitted that the allegation against the petitioner was that he fired at Nazar Muhammad which hit him at his chest but according to the report of the doctor the alleged injury on his chest has been declared as simple. The description-of the injury being 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. so the self-infliction cannot be ruled out. It was lastly argued that during the investigation conducted by the D.S.P., the petitioner was found innocent, rather he recommended for the cancellation of the case but under the orders of the Additional Superintendent of Police, the petitioner has now been challaned.

4. The learned Assistant Advocate-General, on the other hand, opposed the bail but could not repel the argument that the case against the petitioner falls under proviso (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.

5. After having heard the learned counsel of both the sides, I have also gone through the record. I find that the kind of injuries on the person of Nazar Muhammad attributed to the petitioner 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. muscle deep would fall within the definition of "Badi'ah"; the punishment provided thereof is "Daman" and imprisonment which may extend only three years as "Tazir".

6. In my view the offence would fall, under second part of section 324 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1991 which in turn would fall F under section 337-E, subsection (2)(b) and punishment for which is provided under section 337-F, clause (ii). The offence does not fall under the prohibitory clause.

7. Taking into account, once, the recommendation by the D.S.P. that the' petitioner is innocent and he be discharged from the case and the above- C mentioned facts and circumstances, I admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C., Sahiwal.

N.H.Q./M-1238/1, Bail allowed.