2000 PLP 2322 (YLR)

The petitioner seeks bail in case F.I.R. No.251, dated 15-9-1999 under section 302/148/149, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, Saddar, Lodhran.

2. Brief facts as narrated in the F.I.R. are that on the day of occurrence some altercation had been taken place between the parties. At about 12 p.m. Allah Ditta (deceased) was cutting grass from the fields of cotton crop. In the meanwhile, the petitioner-accused alongwith his other co -accused armed with Sota, inflicted Sota blows and caused injuries on the person of deceased Allah Ditta, who, succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The motive alleged behind the occurrence is that the petitioner/accused etc. lived in the neighbourhood of the complainant. They usually quarrelled with-the deceased (husband of the complainant) to enforce them to surrender the possession of the land.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was arrested in the case on 10-10-1999 and sent to judicial remand on 23-10-1999. He further contended that the petitioner has been declared innocent by the D.S.P./I.O. and no recovery has been affected from him. Further argued that the other two co-accused have been released on, bail by this Court, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to the concession of bail on the rule of consistency.

4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

5. I have heard both sides and perused the record. There is no cavil with the fact that the petitioner has been declared innocent on 30Q-2000 by the D.S.P./I. O. and the weapon of offence has not been recovered from him. From the contents of the F.I.R. it seems that no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner and the efficacious liability of the petitioner is yet to be determined by the Court after recording of evidence. The other two co-accused have been granted bail by this Court vide order, dated 21-2-2000. According to the Investigating Officer? no evidence, at present, is available on the record against the petitioner to believe the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of offence. Reliance can be made to the case of Akbar Masih v. State (1995 PCr.LJ 1082) wherein it has been observed by the Judge of the Lahore High Court that weight can be attached to result of investigation and bail should never be withheld as a punishment.

6. In the inquest report, three injuries were shown by the police while according to the medico-legal report there are more injuries on the person of the deceased. In case of Ghulam Nabi v. State 1998 PCr.LJ 968 Hon'ble Judge of the Karachi High Court had held that in case Where no recovery is effected from the, accused apparently and the investigating officer found the accused innocent and recommended their mention in Column No.2 .of the challan, the case required further inquiry into the guilt of the accused and bail should be allowed in such like cases. In case of Khalid Sarwar v. State (1998 PCr.LJ 1133) the Hon'ble Judge of the Lahore High Court has released the accused on bail in case where three Investigating Officers had found the accused innocent in their investigations and placed him in column No. 2, of the chalian. The same view has also been taken by the Courts in cases of Yameen v. Site (1994 PCr.LJ 924) and Abdul Khaliq v. State (1994 PCr.LJ 2338).

7. No specific injury has been attributed to .the petitioner caused on the person of the deceased. According to the story of the F.I.R. all three accused namely, Ranjah; Muhammad Ali and Yasin, petitioner, armed with Sotas caused injuries to the deceased. The guilt of the petitioner is yet to be determined by the Court after recording of prosecution evidence, therefore, the ease of the petitioner calls for further inquiry. For the foregoing reasons, without going into the merits of the case, this bail application is accepted. The petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in, the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 (rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of .learned Illaqa/Duty Magistrate concerned. Q.M.H./M.A:K./G-33/L Bail allowed.