2008 PLP 934 (YLR)

IQBAL HAMEED-UR-REHMAN, J.

The accused/petitioner has applied for bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.170/2006, dated 18-6-2006 under sections 324, 353, 148 and 149, P.P.C. registered at police Station, Chowk Azam, District Layyah.

2. The facts of the case are that the instant case was got registered against the accused/petitioner and other co-accused wherein they while armed with deadly fire-arm weapons alleged to have encountered the police raiding party and opened indiscriminate firing on the police party on 18-6-2006 at 11-30 a.m. when they were encircled by the police party at Head Sarmad Ali Road within the premises of Chak No. 472/TDA, during their chase by the police party in crime, case F.I.R. No.169/2006 in offence under section 379, P.P.C. lodged at police station, Chowk Azam, that the accused persons were caught at the spot as they also handed over their respective weapons to the police and surrendered themselves.

3. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that earlier vide judgment dated 7-5-2007 the learned Trial Court had convicted the petitioner, and others, which is no more in the field as the same in appeal has been remanded back to the learned lower Court for de novo trial, as such, the petitioner seeks bail the instant case after the remand of the case. Further that the provisions of section 324, P.P.C. are not attracted to the petitioner while the other offences are bailable in nature; that the prosecution case cannot be believed. Neither any crime empty has been secured from the place of crime nor any member of the police party sustained even a single injury nor the police firing is stated to have caused any injury to the accused party; that the petitioner and another co-accused stood acquitted by the learned trial Court in case FIR No.169/2006; that there are six accused in the case and all had been attributed general allegations, as such the offence under section 324 P.P.C. is not attracted; that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last 16 months. In this regard, reliance is placed upon (2003 YLR 918) (2007 YLR 1573) and (1999 SCMR 1320); that the petitioner had not fired at the police raiding party. Further that the accused Muhammad Ayub has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 8-10-2007.

4. On the other hand, Deputy Prosecutor General has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the accused party made indiscriminating firing on police. They were caught red-handed (sic) their surrender. The appellate Court had set aside the conviction only on technical grounds.

5. Arguments heard. Record perused.

6. Perusal of the file, prima facie shows that the encounter between the accused persons and the police continued for about 1-1/2 hours. No empty has been recovered from the site and in spite of alleged heavy firing by the accused party as well as by the police, no one has got injury. In these circumstances, the case of the petitioner becomes that of further inquiry. Reliance is placed on (2003 YLR 918). No person has been injured on account of firing made by the accused persons, as such, it was ineffective firing: Moreover the co-accused having attributed the similar role has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 8-10-2007 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.2250/B of 2007, therefore, following the rule of consistency, the petitioner is also entitled to the grant of bail.

7. In view of the foregoing reasons, the instant bail petition is hereby accepted. The petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./N-109/L Bail granted.