1995 PLP 230 (MLD)

‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.337‑A(ii)/34‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Grant of bail in a case not falling within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C. is a rule and refusal an exception. Akhtar Masood Khan for Petitioner. Malik Noor Muhammad Sarfraz for the State. Date of hearing: 16th August, 1994. The petitioner, who is involved in a case under section 337/A(2)/34, P.P.C. arising out of the F.I.R. No.47/94, dated 23‑5‑1994 registered at Police Station, Katha Saghral, District Khushab seeks to be admitted to bail.

2. As per F.I.R., Muhammad Afsar co‑accused and the petitioner is alleged to have taken the complainant Ghulam Abbas in his clasp. Whereas, the petitioner is alleged to have given a Danda blow which landed on the left side of the head.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that during the investigation, Muhammad Akbar and Muhammad Akram, who were nominated as accused were found innocent, hence no sanctity could be attached to this F.I.R. in which so many innocent persons were involved. The petitioner who is an Army Personnel has been involved in this case falsely on account of family dispute regarding the purchase and division of property. The injury caused by the petitioner does not fall within the prohibitory clause and under the law, he is entitled to the grant of bail, unless he is a hardened and desperate criminal which he is not. The co‑accused of the petitioner has since been released on bail and on the principle of consistency in law, the petitioner is entitled to the grant of bail.

4. Learned counsel for the State assisted by the police officer has opposed this bail application.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Admittedly the petitioner is not involved in a case which falls within the prohibitory clause. In a case which does not fall within the prohibitory clause, the grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception. Over and above 8 this, there is a finding of the police that two persons mentioned above were involved innocently. In these circumstances, no sanctity is attached to the F.I.R. in which so many innocent persons were involved. The case of the petitioner is one of further inquiry, as possibility cannot be ruled out that he might have been involved in this case on account of family dispute, hence the petitioner is admitted to bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.30,000 (Rs. Thirty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. N.H.Q./M‑1750/L Bail allowed.