2008 P Cr (PLP)

MUHAMMAD AHSAN BHOON, J.

The petitioner, Muhammad Hayat, through this petition, seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 304 dated 16-10-2007, offence under sections 379/411/148/149/337-A(i)(iii)/337-L(ii), P.P.C. registered with Police Station, Bhera District Sargodha.

2. Precisely, allegation as per F.I.R. is that accused Muhammad Hayat armed with .222 bore rifle, Muhammad Hassnat armed with pistol, Ghulam Shabbir armed with hunter, Muhammad Akram armed with hunter, Fayyaz armed with Sota, Allah Ditta and Muhammad Mumtaz armed with Sotas gave beating to Mahmand Khan, complainant and also took away mobile phone and cash amount of Rs.7,

200. The motive behind the occurrence was that about three months prior to the occurrence the accused party had quarrel with one Muhammad Yousaf, co-accused who suspected that the complainant Mahmand Khan used to extend help to their opposite party.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the earlier bail petition bearing Criminal Miscellaneous No.622/B of 2008 was withdrawn from this Court on 4-3-2008 and at that time the petitioner was allowed to repeat the same after two months in presence of the complainant's learned counsel with the understanding that the same will not be opposed and no specific role of causing injury is attributed to the petitioner and the case of the petitioner is at par with that of his co-accused who has been allowed bail.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that no consent was given by the complainant and it is the petitioner who has caused the injury at the nose of the complainant whereby his nasal bone was fractured. The petitioner was connected with the offence which falls in the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Co-accused of the petitioner, who were granted bail have absconded so he is not entitled to the same relief.

5. The learned D.P.G. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that cash amount as well as rifle was recovered at the instance of the petitioner; therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of bail.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, I have found that no specific role of causing injury has been attributed to the petitioner particularly injured P.W. was complainant of the present F.I.R. The petitioner is in the judicial lock-up since 18-10-2007 and is no more required for the purpose of investigation. Case of the petitioner is at par with that of his co-accused who has been allowed bail therefore, principle of consistency is applicable to the case of the petitioner. He cannot be kept behind the bars for indefinite period of time as premature punishment.

7. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./M-299/L Bail granted.