PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (
Present: Iftikhar Hussain Chaudhary, C.J.
MUHAMMAD ARSHAD--Petitioner
versus
STATE--Respondent
Crl. Misc. No. 4290-B of 2005, decided on 29.6.2005.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 148 & 149--After remaining unsuccess full before Courts below sought post arrest bail from High Court on grounds of innocence case of cross versions and complainant party was agressor--Opposed by complainant on grounds petitioner name in FIR--Specific role attributed and Principal accused--Held: Both the parties had tried to minimize the role played by them in course of occurrence--The fact remains that are person was injured an complainant side--He had a bullet injury which statingly was caused by petitioner--Petitioner, & brother were also injured and femur bone of his leg was also fractured--Further held: No explanation has been offered for the same--As it is case of cross version and there are injured PWs on both sides it would be for the trial Court to determine as to which party was aggressor and which party was aggressed upon-While considering the case of the petitioner that of further inquiry--Bail allowed.
[Pp. 877 & 878] A, B C, D, E, F, G & H
Ch. Muhammad Riaz, Advocate the Petitioner.
Mr. Pervaiz Inayat Malik, Advocate for Complainant.
Mr. Masood Sadiq Mirza, Advocate for State.
Date of hearing : 29.6.2005.
Order
Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 514
dated 29.12.2004 under Sections 324/34, 148/149 PPC registered at Police
Station Jhang Bazar,
A
2. The case was registered at the instance of Amjad Nasir Gill. According to the complainant, he, alongwith Abdul Nasir Gill, Nazim of Union Council No. 272 and Rana Liaquat Ali went to the shop of Liaquat Ali in Ali Housing Scheme for taking breakfast. Muhammad Javed Iqbal and others were present at the spot. In the meanwhile, Muhammad Arshad, armed with .222 bore rifle, Sarfraz, armed with .30 bore pistol and two unknown persons, came in vehicle No. LZG-7220. The accused started firing with the weapons, being carried by them. Abdul Nasir, brother of the complainant tried to take refuge in the nearby shop but was followed by accused, who came running to the road and was fired at by Muhammad Arshad, which hit on the left side of abdomen of Abdul Nasir, who fell down, whereafter, the accused left the spot.
3. Motive for the occurrence was stated to be that brother of the complainant had a plot of land in Ali Housing Scheme and accused wanted to forcibly occupy the same.
4. Subsequently, one Habib Ahmed also submitted an application before police for registration of case against Abdul Nasir Gill, Mahmood Gill, Amjad Gill sons of Abdul Majeed Gill and two other persons. According to Habib Ahmed, his son Muhammad Javed Iqbal had purchased a plot in Chak No. 220/R.B. Tehsil Faisalabad and he, alongwith his sons, had gone to the plot for raising construction thereon, when the afore-mentioned persons, variously armed, came there that they would not allow them to raise construction. Abdul Nasir Gill, Armed with .30 bore pistol, fired at Javed Iqbal, which shot hit him on left leg, who fell down, Sarfraz went forward and was fired by Liaquat Ali son of Muhammad Ashraf, which hit him on the private parts of the body. The accused, therefore, left the spot.
5. Bail for the petitioner has been sought for on the ground that it was a case of false-versions and real brother of the petitioner Javed Iqbal was also injured and femur bone of his thigh was fractured and had to undergo various operations. It was submitted that the petitioner was in possession of a plot of land and the other party tried to dispossess him and had attacked him and it was evident from the contents of FIR that the complainant party had gone to the plot of land from their residences and their presence at the spot, when the incident had taken place, went explained. It was submitted that the complainant party formed an unlawful assembly and attacked the petitioner, his brothers and father and keeping in view the aforesaid factor, petitioner deserved the concession of bail.
Learned counsel for the complainant and State opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. It was submitted that the injured PW in this case had to undergo surgery for a number of times and petitioner had caused that injury and did not deserve the concession of bail. It was submitted that the cross-version, advanced by the petitioner's father, was not accepted by the police but, latter that, was placed on the police file only and petitioner could not get any benefit of the cross-version.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. Both the parties had tried to minimize the role prayed by them in the course of occurrence. The fact remains that one person on the complainant side was injured. He had a bullet injury, which, statingly, was caused by petitioner. Petitioner's brother was also injured and femur bone of his leg was also fractured. No explanation for that has been furnished by the complainant party, as to how Javed Iqbal was injured. As it is a case of cross-versions and there are injured P.Ws on both sides, it would be for the trial Court to determine, as to which party was the aggressor and which party was aggressed upon. Therefore, for the present, case of the petitioner is considered to be that of further enquiry and he is allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lac) with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
(R.A.) Bail allowed.