2006 PLP 664 (YLR)

M. BILAL KHAN, J.

Laeeq Ahmad son of Ch. Muhammad Rafique, the petitioner, by tiling the instant petition seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.57, dated 13-4-2005, registered at Police Station Phlora, District Sialkot for offences under sections 324, 427, 337-A(i) and 337-A(ii) P.P.C. read with section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance No.XX of 1965, at the instance of Muhammad Anwar son of Muhammad Iqbal.

2. Since the facts of the case have already been discussed in detail in the order dated 31-5-2005 passed by this Court in Cr

1. Misc. No.3717/B of 2005, therefore, the same need not be reproduced again. My learned brother Rustan Ali Malik, J. (as his Lordship then was) while declining the plea of post-arrest bail to the petitioner had observed that "the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail at this stage". His second bail application bearing Crl. Misc. No.5735/B of 2005 came up for hearing before me on 22-9-2005 and the same was dismissed as having been withdrawn.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner moved his application for post-arrest bail on the plea that a fresh ground has accrued to him inasmuch as the Investigating Officer has rendered an opinion that applicability of section 324, P.P.C. was doubtful, which was turned down initially by the learned Magistrate Section 30, Pasrur and then by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pasrur vide orders dated 22-10-2005 and 1-11-2005, respectively. Hence, the instant petition.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for both the sides at considerable length and have also gone through the record brought by Abdul Islam, A.S.-I.

5. It has been observed that the petitioner is in custody ever since 13-4-2005. The offence under section 324, P.P.C. has since been deleted vide Zimni No.2-A. It has also been observed that initially section 324, P.P.C. had not been invoked by the police. The said penal provision had been added by the police after the learned Judicial Magistrate, during the course of hearing of bail application, vide his order dated 15-4-2005, had observed that section 324, P.P.C. was "fully made out in the case". After perusal of the record, I have noted that it was an uncalled for observation inasmuch as it had the tendency of prejudicing the case of the petitioner. Even otherwise this observation runs counter to the dictum laid down by the learned Full Bench of this Court in the case, Khizer Hayat and others v. Inspector General of Police Punjab, Lahore and others (PLD 2005 Lahore 470). Be that as it may, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the damage caused by the petitioner, although he was allegedly armed with a lethal firearm, the applicability of section 324, P.P.C. needs further probe. The rest of the penal sections invoked in the F.I.R. do not attract the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.

6. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. N.H.Q./L-141/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail allowed.