MUHAMMAD ASHIQ Versus State

ORDER

MEHMOOD AHMAD BHATTI, J.--- Muhammad Ashiq, the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No.22 dated 29.1.2014 registered under sections 302, 34, 337-A(iii), 337-F(v), 337-A(i) and 337-F(i), P.P.C. at Police Station Budhla Sant, District Multan.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he inflicted injury on the hands of Muhammad Akram deceased with an iron bar. He is also said to have caused injury to Asif, son of the complainant with his iron bar that landed on his left leg and head.

3. Arguments heard. Record perused.

4. As per the post-mortem report, the cause of death was injury No.1, which is attributed to co-accused, Abdul Qayyum, who allegedly gave a hatchet blow to the deceased that struck him on his head. In sharp contrast, the petitioner is alleged to have caused injuries to the deceased on his hands. The wounds were declared abrasions and scabs. As for the other injuries put down to him, which he allegedly caused to Asif, the other son of the complainant, injury on the head was declared as Shajjah-i-Khafifah, while injury on the left leg was declared Ghayr-Jaifah Damiyah. Looking at the aforesaid injuries closely, the offences of the petitioner fall under sections 337-A(i) and 337-F(ii), P.P.C., which carry penalties of 2 years and 3 years' imprisonment, respectively. As such they do not fall within the prohibitory clause.

5. As for the question whether the petitioner would be vicariously liable for the acts of Abdul Qayyum to whom fatal injury is attributed, this can only be gone into by the learned trial Court after holding full-fledged trial. It can also be not lost sight of that FIR was lodged two days after the occurrence. The possibility cannot be ruled out that the complaint was drafted after due deliberations and consultations, casting the net as wide as possible.

6. No weapon of offence was recovered from the petitioner. The first Investigating Officer opined vide Zimni No.17 dated 17.3.2014 that the petitioner was not present at the scene of occurrence, while the second Investigating Officer recorded the finding vide Zimni No.44 dated 26.5.2014 that the petitioner was unarmed.

7. Contrary to the allegation made in the FIR, the occurrence was found to have taken place in the house of co-accused Yaqoob, not outside the house of Muhammad Aslam, the complainant. To put it mildly, it is yet to be determined who opened the account and who went to whose home to carry out the assault.

8. For what has been stated above, there are sufficient grounds calling for further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner within the purview of Section 497, Cr.P.C . He is, therefore, admitted to bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lacs) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

HBT/M-23/L Bail granted.