2010 P Cr (PLP)

IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.

Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.44 dated 27-1-2009 under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, P.P.C. Police Station Saddar Raiwind, Kasur.

2. Briefly the allegation against the petitioner is that he while armed with rifle accompanied by co-accused inflicted injuries to Muhammad Aslam maternal uncle of the complainant, due to which he died.

3. It is contended by learned counsel that in the F.I.R. the petitioner has been shown to be armed with rifle but during investigation only a Sota has been allegedly recovered from him; that the petitioner is not attributed any specific injury and as a general role he has been alleged to have caused injuries on the legs and arms of the injured, which injuries are even in conflict with the medical evidence as in the Medico-legal certificate four injuries have been shown, whereas post-mortem report shows seven injuries and that case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry.

4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposed the grant of bail on the ground that specific injuries have been attributed to the petitioner; that petitioner was also implicated by the deceased in his dying declaration; that both the legs and arms of the injured Muhammad Aslam were broken and that there is sufficient evidence on the record to connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence.

5. Heard. Record perused.

6. Per contents of the F.I.R. as well as according to the statement of the deceased when he was in injured condition, the petitioner was alleged to be armed with rifle, but during investigation only a Sota has been shown to have been recovered from him. According to the F.I.R. in all five persons repeated injuries on the person of the deceased, but the medical evidence only shows four to seven injuries, as such, prima facie there is conflict between the ocular and the medical account of the occurrence. Though the opinion of the police is not binding on the Court yet to the extent of involvement of the petitioner that he was armed with rifle but did not use the same during the incident and had only given butt blows, bring the case against the petitioner within the purview of further inquiry. Apart from the above, petitioner is behind the bars and nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail in the above case on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.

7. The learned trial Court is directed to ensure that trial of the case is concluded within a period of three months, of receipt of this order. N.H.Q./A-26/L Bail allowed.