2017 P Cr (PLP)

ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.

Through this single order, I propose to decide the instant petition along with Criminal Miscellaneous No.14319-B of 2015 as in both these petitions, Muhammad Usman and Muhammad Imran petitioners have sought post-arrest bail under section 497, Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.178/2015, dated 16.04.2015, under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, 337A(ii), 337-L(2), P.P.C., Police Station Urban Area, Sargodha.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. These are petitions for bail after arrest and only tentative assessment is required at this stage. As per FIR, the allegation against Muhammad Imran petitioner is that he inflicted injuries on the person of Muhammad Sagheer injured, which have been declared by the doctor as 337A(ii), P.P.C. and 337-L(2), P.P.C. and besides this role, no injury whatsoever on the person of the deceased or any other PW is attributed to him. Like-wise, the allegation against Muhammad Usman petitioner is that he was present at the spot empty handed and he along with co-accused Shaukat gave kick and fist blows to Muhammad Amin deceased. During postmortem examination of the deceased, the doctor observed only a contusion mark on front of right chest of the deceased and except a contusion, no other mark of violence was observed by the doctor on the dead body of the deceased and who has caused this injury shall be determined by the learned trial court after recording evidence. It is also well settled law that vicarious liability of the petitioners or sharing common intention with their co-accused in the commission of alleged occurrence shall be determined by the learned trial Court after recording evidence. There is yet another fact in this case as the allegation against Muhammad Usman petitioner and his co-accused Shaukat is that they gave kick and fist blows to the deceased, so whether instant case falls under section 302, P.P.C. or 315, P.P.C. is to be determined by the learned trial Court at an appropriate stage. It is settled law that benefit of a slightest doubt arising out of prosecution case has to be given to the accused not as a matter of grace but as a matter of right even at bail stage. Admittedly the petitioners are previous non-convict and never involved in any other case. Investigation of the case is complete and they are no more required for further investigation. Muhammad Usman petitioner was arrested by the police in connection with this case on 10.06.2015 and Muhammad Imran was arrested on 18.05.2015 and since then they are behind the bars without any fruitful progress in conclusion of their trial. Nobody can be kept in jail for an indefinite period as speedy trial is the right of every accused. Similarly, mere heinousness of offence is no ground to refuse bail to the accused, who otherwise become entitled to it.

3. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioners becomes one of further inquiry covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. These petitions are, therefore, allowed and the petitioners are granted bail after arrest subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.

4. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that the observations made above are purely tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of these bail petitions only. SL/M-9/L Bail granted.