ATTA MUHAMMAD And Another vs THE STATE

ORDER

Atta Muhammad and Mst. Babra, the petitioners through the instant petition have sought for after- arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.198 dated 18-5-2002 under sections 337-A (ii)/337-F(i)/337-L(ii)/ 3341 354/34, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Mumtazabad, Multan.

2. Briefly the facts of the prosecution case as contained in the F.I.R. Are that on 17-5-2002 at about 6-00 p.m. Mst. Nasim Bibi. The were of the complainant and Mst. Zubeda Bibi, his brother's were were going to tailor to take stitched clothes from him. They when reached the vacant plot near the house of Atta Muhammad (petitioner No. 1), Mst. Kalsoom, his (Atta Muhammad) were and daughters Mst. Najma and Babra. Were sitting there in ambush. They started giving fist blows and kicks to them. Meanwhile, he (Atta Muhammad) also came there. He caught Zubeda Bibi. Mst.

Najma and Babra started beating her. Meanwhile, he pushed Nasim Bibi on the ground and sat on her while Babra bit her ear with teeth and separated it from the face. The bleeding started to her from the wound. Mst. Kalsoom caught Mst. Zubaida Bibi from her hair and made her to lie on the ground. She and Mst. Najma gave her fist blows and kicks on the different parts of her body.

Thereafter, they all dragged both of them and due to the same their clothes were torn. On their noise, Muhammad Ramzan, Ghulam Shabbir and other residents of the village were attracted to the spot. They beseeched them (accused) and rescued the injured ladies.

3. The motive behind the occurrence is that few days prior to the same, there had taken place the quarrel between the children of the parties and the respectables of the locality had got effected compromise between them. The accused had borne grudge over the same. On that account, they had committed the above act.

4. It has been contended on their behalf that petitioner No. 1 Atta Muhammad has not been attributed injury to any of the injured ladies; that the only role attributed to him is that he had pushed the injured Mst. Naseem Bibi to the ground, and sat on her that he is behind the bars and not a previous convict; that as regards petitioner No.2 Mst. Babra, the injury ascribed to her of chopping of the ear of Mst. Naseem Bibi attracts an offence punishable under section 334, P.P.C.

And the punishment for the same is executable that cross-version from their side has been advanced but the police did not properly attend to the same; that she is a woman and so her case is covered under the first proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. That she is having with her, suckling child in jail and is also pregnant; and that she is not a previous convict.

5. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition on the ground that they both are named in the F.I.R.; that they had been assigned specific role in the commission of the crime; and that offence under section 334, P. P. C. Is punishable with 10 years imprisonment and hence the same is covered under the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.

7. As regards Atta Muhammad (petitioner No.1), he according to the F.I.R. Has pushed Mst. Nasim Bibi to the ground and sat on her. He has been assigned no injury to any of the injured ladies. It is, therefore, yet to be seen at the time of trial that if he can be held liable for the offence under section 334, P.P.C. Or not. The rest of the offences except one under section 337-A(ii), P.P.C. Against him are bailable.

8. As regards Mst. Babra (petitioner No.2), she allegedly had bitten the ear of Mst. Nasim Bibi with her teeth and separated the same from her face. She is a woman. Hence, her case is covered under the first proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C.

9. Besides than this, she is stated to be having with her milk suckling child in jail and is also pregnant.

10. Furthermore, they had four and seven injuries respectively on their person on their medical examination. It has been contended on their behalf that cross-version was advanced from their side but the police have not properly attended to the same.

11. Anyway, due to the cross-version, it is also yet to be seen that who was aggressor and who was aggressed upon. So, the case against them also requires further inquiry into their guilt and the same is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. They are behind the bars and stated to be previous non-convicts. The case of Khaliq Dad v. The State 2002 PCr.LJ 28 Peshawar as mentioned by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in his order dated 26-4-2003 declining them bail for the above reason is distinguishable from her case.

12. In these circumstances, I find them entitled to bail. The petition, therefore, is accepted and they are admitted to bail provided they furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.