2001 P Cr (PLP)

Sh. Naseem Rashid for the State. Date of hearing: 29th June, 1999. Muhammad Ibrahim petitioner and his brother Muhammad Yaqoob stand accused to case F.I.R. No.197, ated 17‑3‑1999, under sections 337‑A(i)/337‑A(ii)/337‑F(i)/34, P.P.C. re istered against them with Police Station Saddar, Pakpattan Sharif.

2. Precisely the accusations against the petitioner and his co‑accused, who are real brothers inter se, are that on 16‑3‑1999 at about 12‑00 (noon) while armed with Sotas, launched an assault upon Khalid Nawaz in the rexenue estate of village Sojan Amar Singh, situated at a distance of about 13 kilometers from the police station. In consequence of the violence exacted by them, Khalid Nawaz sustained six injuries in all. Said Muhammad, father of vi0im of assault, had reported the matter of the following day of occurrence al 9‑35 p.m.

3. Petitioner's application for gratx of post‑arrest bail was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pakpattan on 1‑6‑1999. He has approached this Court through this application for the said purpose.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the challan has been submitted and the petitioner is behind the bars for the last about three months. He also submits that the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and his co‑accused are 'At. the most punishable with five years' R.I. and as such the case does not fall 'Within the prohibitory field of section 497, Cr.P.C.

5. Conversely, learned State Counsel argued that it is a day time occurrence. Names of both the accused figure in the first information report and the parts played by them during the course of occurrence have also been mentioned therein.

6. I have gone through the record with the help of both the learned counsel. I find that there is an excessive and unwarranted delay of about 20/21 hours in lodging of tie F.I.R. with the police and no plausible explanation has been offered by the prosecution. Khalid Nawaz injured was examined by the Medical Officer on the day of occurrence. The examining doctor observed six injuries in all on his person. Injury No.6 is just a complaint of pain on back of chest. Injuries Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 are merely petty abrasions. Injuries Nos. l and 2 are located on the head. Abrasions could hardly occur because of forceful blows of Sotas. The motive part of the occurrence described in the F.I.R. is also not confidence inspiring and 4at led to the occurrence is also shrouded in mystery. Co‑accused of the petitioner is already on bail. The offences with which the petitioner and his co‑accused are charged, are not punishable with ten years or more, and as such are not covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. There are no exceptional circumstances on file to disentitle the petitioner from the grant of bail. In addition to this initiation, continuance and conclusion of trial is likely to consume a long time and further detention of the petitioner will be of no avail to the prosecution.

7. Accordingly, I accept this petition and admit the petitioner to bail subject to this furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.30,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./M‑547/L ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.