2002 PLP 944 (YLR)

‑‑‑‑S.497(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/148/149‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Fact that both the accused had not caused any injury to any person during the incident was not disputed‑‑‑One accused stood guard at the place of occurrence and the other held the arms of the deceased to facilitate his co -accused to inflict hatchet blows on the deceased‑‑‑No recovery whatsoever had been effected from both of the accused‑‑‑Accused who were found innocent by two of the three Investigating Officers had been recommended for discharge at one stage‑‑‑Investigation of, the case was complete‑‑‑Case of the two accused called for further inquiry, they were granted bail. Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioners. Sikandar Javaid for the Complainant. Arshad Ali for the State. Through this petition Ikhtiar Ali and Khadim Hussain petitioners have sought post- arrest bail in case F. I. R. No. 118 registered at Police Station Machhiwal, District Vehari on 18‑6‑2001 for offences under sections 148/302/149, P.P.C.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that the role attributed to Ikhtiar Ali petitioner No.1 is that of standing guard at the place of occurrence while the role allegedly played by Khadim Hussain petitioner No.2 in the incident was that he had held the arms of Rafaqat Ali deceased so as to facilitate his co‑accused to inflict hatchet blows on the deceased. It is not disputed that both the present petitioners had not themselves caused any injury to any person during the incident in question. No recovery of any sort was affected from the petitioners during the investigation. The learned counsel for the State has pointed out that two out of three Investigating Officers who had investigated this case at different occasions had found the present petitioners to be innocent and at one stage a recommendation was made regarding their discharge which recommendation was, however, disagreed with by the Area Magistrate. The investigation of this case has already been completed and thus, physical custody of the petitioners in jail is not required for the purposes of the same.

3. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioners calls for further inquiry into their guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioners are admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only.) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. S.M.A.H./I‑132/L Bail granted.