2007 PLP 258 (YLR)

IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--Through this application under section 497, Cr.P.C. Umer Hayat (petitioner) seeks post-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No.253 of 2005, dated 31-10-2005, registered under sections 337/F(v), L(ii), 148/149, P.P.,C. at Police Station Kandiwal, District Jhang on the application of Ghulam Mustafa, the complainant.

2. The brief facts as alleged in the F.I.R. are that on 28-10-2005 at about 6-00 p.m. the complainant went to Civil Hospital, Kandiwal, where the petitioner was present and abusing to the Doctor concerned. The complainant refrained the petitioner but he raised Lalkara whereupon his co-accused assaulted him. On the same day at 6-30 p.m. his father who is "Imam Masjid" when was going mosque at "Isha-Vaila" and when he reached near the house of the petitioner, co-accused Muhammad raised Lalkara. The petitioner made butt blow of his gun hitting on the right wrist of his father. Thereafter, the other co-accused also assaulted the father of the complainant. On hue and cry the inhabitants of the locality had attracted there and the accused persons ran away.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that occurrence admittedly had taken place near the house of the petitioner and the petitioner had got lodged F.I.R. No.282 of 2005 at the same police station on 29-10-2005 with the same incident in which the complainant is one of the co-accused; that the offence does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last 7 months and during the course of investigation, nothing has been recovered from him and he cannot be detained in Jail for indefinite period and bail cannot be withheld as a punishment.

4. The learned counsel for the State has opposed this bail petition on the ground that the petitioner along with his co-accused had launched murderous assault upon the complainant party, therefore, he is not entitled to the bail.

5. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with due care and caution.

6. It is a case of two versions, which is correct, will be seen by the learned trial Court after recording of evidence of the parties as the petitioner is involved in case which does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is behind the bar for the last 7 months and nothing is to be recovered from his possession and his person is also no more required to the police for further investigation, which is complete and his further detention in jail will serve no useful purpose to the prosecution. Allegedly the petition was armed with gun, but he did not use the same in the occurrence. In such-like cases, grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception and I did not find any exceptional circumstances to refuse the bail to the present petitioner in this case.

7. For the foregoing reasons, the instant bail petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. H.B.T./U-11/L Bail granted.