2001 P Cr (PLP)

Muhammad Khalid Farooq for Petitioner. Syed Altaf Hussain Bukhari for the State. Muhammad Anwar son of Abdul Aziz, petitioner, has sought his post‑arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No.458 of 1999 registered at Police Station Mitru, District Vehari, on 4‑10‑1999, under sections 302/324/148/149/ 337‑A(ii) and 337‑F(i), P.P.C.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was a member of an unlawful assembly and caused injuries on the person of Abdul Razzaq and Muhammad Ashfaq, when they were lying on the ground after receiving injuries at the hands of the other co‑accused. The bail application of to petitioner was dismissed by Mr. Nasrullah Ranjha, Additional Session Judge, Mailsi, vide his order, dated 3‑4‑2001.

3. I have gone through the record through the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the parties and also heard their arguments. It has been noticed that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has passed the order without any application of mind. According to the said order the petitioner caused injuries to the deceased and his case was also distinguishable front the case of Abdul Aziz, co‑accused, who has already been granted bail. Toe perusal of the record shows that there is no allegation that the petitioner caused any injury to the deceased and the role of the petitioner is similar to that of Abdul Aziz, co‑accused, who has already been granted bail. Rather the role of the petitioner is little less as Lalkara is not attributed to him. The rule of consistency requires that the accused who is attributed similar role I should be treated in similar way.

4. The learned counsel for the State, who is present in Court, has conceded that role of the petitioner is similar to the role of his co‑accused Abdul Aziz, who has already been granted bail and that no application for cancellation of his bail has been filed.

5. During investigation sections 148/149, P.P.C. have been deleted, therefore, the story of the prosecution as alleged in the F.I.R. has been fond to use incorrect to some extent. Since the petitioner has not been attributed any specific injury and as he has not caused any injury to the deceased, who died because of the fire‑arm injury, the allegation against the petitioner needs further probe and inquiry and the case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.

6. In view of the above discussion, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to his tendering bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. However, the observations made in this Court are tentaive in nature and shall not affect the case‑of either party at the trial. H.B.T./M‑703/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.