2017 PLP 428 (YLRN)

ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.

Through this petition under section 497 Cr.P.C. the petitioner Rehman alias Peer has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No. 459/2016 dated 10.08.2016 under sections 324, 337-F(iii), 337-D, 34, P.P.C., registered at Police Station City Toba District Toba Tek Singh.

2. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record of this case has also been perused with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and deeper appreciation of evidence is not allowed at this stage. The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with his co-accused made a fire-shot with his pistol at Munib Azhar injured which landed on his left thigh. The petitioner has not repeated the fire; hence, the attraction of section 324, P.P.C. to the extent of petitioner shall be determined by the learned trial court after recoding of evidence. During investigation so far it has come on record that the petitioner was merely found present at the spot along with pistol and has not caused any injury to the injured Munib Azhar. Although, opinion of the police is not binding on the Courts of law, yet the same can be taken into consideration while deciding bail applications, therefore, by keeping in view the contents of FIR and the outcome of investigation, prima facie the case of prosecution to the extent of petitioner has become a case of two versions i.e. one put forward by the complainant and the other came on record during investigation and which version is correct shall be determined by the learned trial court after recording evidence. Reliance can easily be placed upon 2012 SCMR 1137 (Ehsan Ullah v. The State). The petitioner is behind the bars since 30.08.2016 without fruitful progress in his trial. Admittedly the petitioner is previous non-convict and never involved in any other case of such like nature. The investigation of the case is complete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation. The offence with which the petitioner is charged is triable by Magistrate section 30 who is competent to pass sentence for seven years only. It is settled law that maximum punishment provided under the law is not to be considered while dealing with bail application. Mere heinousness of offence is no ground to refuse the concession of bail to an accused, who otherwise, becomes entitled for concession of bail on the merits of the case. No useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars.

3. For what has been discussed above, case of the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry covered by sub-section (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. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only. WA/R-2/L Petition allowed.