2018 PLP 171 (YLRN)

ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.

Through this petition under section 498, Cr.P.C. the petitioners have sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.352/17, dated 03.08.2017 registered at Police Station Bara Ghar, District Nankana Sahib in respect of offences under sections 337-A(i), 337-F(iii), 147, 149, P.P.C.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. This is bail before arrest and only tentative assessment is required at this stage. It has been noticed by this Court that although petitioners are named in FIR, yet the fact remains that there is a delay of two days in registration of FIR, which has not been explained by the complainant, which prima facie reflects that the FIR has been got registered after due deliberation and consultation. Admittedly the injuries attributed to Muhammad Musa and Saddam Hussain petitioners on the heads of Muhammad Abdullah complainant and Abbas injured have been declared by the doctor as "Shajjah-i-Khafifa" falling under section 337A(i), P.P.C., which is bailable offence, whereas the injury attributed to Muhammad Mushtaq petitioner on right knee of Muhammad Abdullah complainant has been declared by the doctor as "Ghayr-jaifah-Mutalahimah" falling under section 337-F(iii), P.P.C., which carries maximum punishment upto three years only. Even otherwise according to the contents of FIR, the allegation against Muhammad Mushtaq petitioner is that he caused injury on right knee of Muhammad Abdullah complainant with front side of hatchet, but according to medico legal certificate of Muhammad Abdullah complainant/injured, the injury on his right knee is a lacerated wound, therefore, whether injury on right knee of Muhammad Abdullah complainant has been caused with hatchet or is the result of fall on the ground shall be determined by learned trial court after recording evidence. Admittedly the petitioners are previous non-convict; their physical custody cannot be handed over to police only for the purpose of effecting recoveries, which otherwise have lost relevancy with the passage of time as occurrence in this case took place on 01.08.2017. In such situation, recovery of weapons of offence after the lapse of almost three and half months is of little help to the prosecution. In this regard, reliance can be placed on 2014 SCMR 1349. Since the petitioners are previous non-convict and they are neither habitual, desperate criminals nor have committed the offence in the name of or on the pretext of honour, therefore, section 337-N(2), P.P.C. also comes to their rescue. Even otherwise, the investigating officer has already submitted report under section 173, Cr.P.C. before learned trial court on 22.08.2017, which means that investigation of the case against the petitioners complete and they are no more required for further investigation, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by sending them behind the bars so as to enable them to come out of jail on post-arrest bail after few days.

3. For what has been discussed above, false implication of the petitioners by the complainant by spreading the net wide cannot be ruled out of consideration and they have made out a case for bail before arrest, hence, this petition is allowed and the ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners vide this Court's order dated 04.12.2017 is hereby confirmed subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each, with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.

4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only. HBT/M-22/L Bail confirmed.