BAHADUR SHER Versus THE STATE
ORDER
The case of prosecution against the applicant is that on 22-5-1988 due to previous altercation between the parties, the present applicant is alleged to have given 'Churri' blows on stomach, back and arm of the complainant Iqbal, who was subsequently taken to the hospital by the witnesses, where his statement was recorded under section 154, Cr. P. C . which was incorporated in the F.I.R. bearing No.112/1988-at Police Station T.P.X. The incident is alleged to have been witnessed by five eye-witnesses.
2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the complainant as well as the two eye-witnesses namely, Nihar Mohammad and Malik Naz have filed affidavits in this Court exonerating the applicant. In his affidavit the complainant /injured has stated that in the fight he could not see as to who inflicted injuries on his person and that in the hospital he was not in full senses when his statement was recorded by the Police. The other two eye-witnesses state that they have not seen the incident.
3. Reliance is placed oh the case of Allah Bakhsh v. Nazar Hussain Shah and another 1979 S C M R 137. In the reported case on the basis of affidavits filed by the alleged eye-witnesses exculpating the accused person from commission of the crime the High Court held that the case was one of further enquiry, and therefore, it was not a case where bail could be refused to the accused. This view of the High Court was approved by their Lordships of Supreme Court, who held that such finding of the High Court was unexceptionable.
4. Mr. A.A. Muhammad Ali the learned A.A.-G. appearing for the State has relied upon the case of Sanaullah and others v. The State. In that case there were two eye-witnesses and one eye-witness had filed affidavit to the effect that he had not seen the incident. The High Court refused to grant bail to the accused. Their Lordships of Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court holding, that 'even if such witness is assumed to have not seen the occurrence, complainant being also witness, would support the case and the High Court was justified in dismissing the bail application".
5. The instant case appears to be distinguishable, as in the instant case the complainant, who is also injured person, has filed affidavit that he cannot say as to who caused him injuries. As such the case is one of further enquiry, as the Court has yet to determine, as to who inflicted injuries upon him.
I accordingly order that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.30,000 and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
M.Y.H./B-78/K Bail granted.