2000 PLP 1845 (YLR)

Shah Muhammad, the petitioner is involved in case F.I.R. No. 309 of 1999 under section 337‑F(i)(v), P.P.C. got registered against him by one Qasim Ali on 20‑6‑1999 at Police Station Luddan, District Vehari. According to the facts of the prosecution version contained in F.I.R., the petitioner while armed with a Sota inflicted injuries on the person of the complainant Qasim Ali, with the same at 7‑00 p.m. in the area of village Lal Muhammad located at a distance of 3 kilometres from the police station. Two injuries on his arms are stated to be of grievous nature. On commencement of investigation, the petitioner was apprehended by the police on 18‑7‑1999 and was sent to judicial lock‑up in New Central Jail, Multan, when no longer required for further investigation. Now he is awaiting turn of his trial, which has not commenced so far. His application far post‑arrest bail was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari on 11‑9‑1999 Hence this petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the crime report was made after two days of the occurrence of the alleged incident, which speaks of concoction at high tones on the part of the complainant, and the offence with which the petitioner is charged is punishable with 5 years and, as such, it does not fall within the prohibitory field of section 497, Cr.P.C.

3. Conversely, learned counsel for the State argues that the petitioner was named in the F. I. R. and there were specific allegations regarding infliction of injuries with a 'Sota' upon the complainant and that two injuries were of grievous character, and further the petitioner possesses high degree of interest in the matter and out of malice aforethought brutally inflicted injuries on the forearms of the complainant and as such he is not entitled to the concession of bail.

4. Having heard both the sides, I am of the view that the case of the petitioner is not covered by an embargo placed in section 497, Cr.P.C. and he is behind the bars for the last about three months. He is no longer required for the investigation purposes and his further detention in the jail is not likely to serve any useful purpose to the prosecution in any manner. The conclusion of trial is likely to consume a pretty long time. The petitioner has made out a case for the grant of bail. Accordingly, I admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000 (rupees twenty‑five thousands) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Allaqa Magistrate concerned. The petitioner is directed to appear on each and every date of hearing before the learned trial Court. Any lapse on his part would disentitle him to remain on bail. Disposed of. accordingly. H.B.T./S‑32/L Bail granted.