1999 PLP 2200 (YLR)

A case under section 324/34, P.P.C. was registered against the petitioner vide F.I.R. No.358 of 1998, dated 2‑9‑1998 at Police Station Nankana Sahib, District Sheikhupura at the report of Bashir Ahmad complainant that his son was fired at by the petitioner alongwith Amir alias Bhola, both armed with carbines and Muhammad Akhtar armed with .12 bore gun. The injured namely Javed Masih suffered three injuries, out of which two were on the Legs and one on the thigh. The injuries were declared as Munaqqilah punishable up to seven years under section 337‑F(vi), P.P.C. as per medico‑legal report.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that two persons named in the F.I.R. i.e. Amir alias Bhola and Muhammad Akhtar who had also simultaneously fired at the victim have since been declared innocent by the police although they had similar role, assigned to them in the F.I.R., as such, it has become a case of further enquiry because the actual author of the injuries can only be determined during the trial. Secondly, it is submitted that none of the injuries is on the vital part of body of the victim and as such, the provisions contained in section 324, P.P.C. are not attracted. Thirdly, it is contended that the injuries as aforesaid have been found Munaqqilah according to the medico‑legal report and as such, the punishment of the same does not fall within the prohibitory clause. Lastly, it is contended that there is delay in lodging the F.I.R. by about five days and that the petitioner is behind the bars since after his arrest on 10‑11‑1998. It is, therefore, prayed that the petitioner is entitled to bail.

3. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail petition on the ground that the petitioner while armed with carbine had caused injuries to the victim and as such, the intention was quite clear that he wanted to take his life. Secondly, it is submitted that the weapon of offence has also been recovered from him which further linked him with the occurrence being a corroborative factor. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner has no case for bail.

4. I have considered the foregoing contentions and find that there were three assailants named in the F.I.R. and all of them were attributed similar role. However, on oath, the police had declared Amir alias Bhola and Muhammad Akhtar as innocent, whereas, the present petitioner was found guilty. This type of investigation or finding of the police is deprecated quite often by the superior Courts with the observation that the investigation should be based on evidence and not on oath of some unconcerned persons because there is no procedure for taking such oath. Since two assailants afore-named have been found innocent, therefore, it becomes a case of further enquiry as far as the petitioner is concerned, particularly when the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause and there is delay in filing the F.I.R. by about five days. The petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.30,000 with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Q.M.H./M.A.K./K‑99/L Bail allowed.