MANZOOR AHMAD Versus State
ORDER
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.--- Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought bail after arrest in cross-version under sections 337A(iii), 337V, 355, 148, 149, P.P.C. got recorded by Muhammad Irshad in case FIR No.86/16 dated 10.03.2016, registered at Police Station Satghara, District Okara.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and only tentative assessment is allowed at this stage, therefore, without going deeper into the facts of the case, it has been noticed that the petitioner is the accused of cross-version got recorded by Muhammad Irshad complainant, wherein he has been attributed the role of causing injury on the nose of Safdar injured, but admittedly there is a delay of two days in medical examination of said Safdar injured and three days delay in recording cross-version, which prima facie shows that cross-version has been got recorded after due deliberation and consultation. It is also an admitted fact that Safdar injured has not appeared before the Standing Medical Board constituted by the order of learned Magistrate concerned for his medical reexamination despite three times summoning on 06.04.2017, 17.04.2017 and 20.04.2017. These facts prima facie create ,doubt in this case to the extent of the petitioner. After registration of cross-version, this case has become. the case of two-versions and which party is aggressor is to .be determined by the learned trial court after recording evidence. During arguments, it transpired that the accused of FIR are on bail. It is settled law that in case of counter versions, if one party is allowed bail, then the other parties is also entitled to the same relief. In this respect, reliance can be placed on PLD 2009 SC 58. Admittedly, the petitioner is previous non-convict and never involved in any other case. He was arrested in this case on 07.12,2016. Investigation of the case is complete and he is no more required for further investigation, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars.
3. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is granted bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
4. Before parting with this order, it is deemed appropriate to clarify that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only.
WA/M-77/L Bail granted.