2007 PLP 1186 (YLR)

IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.

Through this application under section 497, Cr.P.C. Muhammad Hayat, petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No.73 of 2006, dated 14-3-2006 registered under section 394, P.P.C. at Police Station Shah Bhore, District Okara on the application of Muhammad Shahjehan, the complainant.

2. The briefs of the case as narrated in the F.I.R. are that during the night between 9/10-3-2006, the petitioner along with his co-accused armed with fire-arms came at the Tubewell of the complainant, where his servant Muhammad Aslam was sleeping for looking after the said tubewell. The petitioner and his co-accused demanded the keys of room of the tubewell from Muhammad Aslam and upon his refusal they grappled with each other. In the meanwhile, the petitioner made fire from his pistol, which missed and then Rab Ditta co-accused made fire from his own rifle 7 mm hitting on the right thigh of said Aslam. On hearing the sound of firing, Naushar alias Nosha and Nazir P.Ws. also attracted there. On seeing them, the accused persons fled away. The complainant identified the accused persons in the light of bulb, who also took away Rs.8,000, wrist watch, tape-recorder valuing Rs.6,000 forcibly from Muhammad Aslam.

3. The learned counsel for. the petitioner has contended that no injury is attributed to the petitioner and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to previous enmity in the village; that the injury allegedly caused to the victim during the incident has specifically been attributed to the co-accused; that the petitioner is minor and not involved in such-like cases previously, who has also been declared innocent by the police.

4. The learned counsel for the complainant assisted by learned State counsel has opposed this bail petition on the ground that the petitioner had participated along with his co-accused in the incident and offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

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

6. The sufficient material has been brought on record by the petitioner about the enmity between father of the petitioner and father of injured P.W. Even otherwise the petitioner had not caused any injury to the deceased and nothing has been recovered from his possession during the investigation. The petitioner is behind the bars of the last 7 months and he is not involved previously in cases of such-like nature. The chance of false implication of the petitioner in the present case cannot be ruled out. Moreover, the petitioner has been alleged to be a minor and police also declared him innocent during the investigation. Though the opinion of the police is not binding upon Courts, yet it can be considered at bail stage, if the same is based on solid reasons. Whether the petitioner had shared common intention during the occurrence is a question of further inquiry. 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.1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./M-659/L Bail granted.