2010 P Cr (PLP)

HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.

Through this petition, petitioner, Shafqat alias Shafoo son of Abdul Sattar seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.274 of 2009 dated 26-6-2009 registered at Police Station Yousafwala, District Sahiwal, under sections 337-F(i), 337-F(v), 34, P.P.C.

2. Brief facts of the case as alleged by the complainant are that on 17-6-2009 at 11-30 a.m. he was present at hotel of Yaseen in the Chowk; that suddenly Javaid alias Jaidi, Zafar Iqbal and Shafqat armed with "Sotas" riding on the motorcycle-125 reached there, Javaid attributed Lalkara that Mehboob Hussain be taught a lesson for persuing the case whereas at that time Ali Sher armed with pistol also reached there, on Lalkara of Javaid, Shafqat inflicted "Sota" blow which hit on the back of left hand of the complainant and hand was broken, Javaid inflicted "Sota" blow which hit right wrist of the complainant, Zafar Iqbal inflicted "Sota" blow which hit left leg of the complainant and hand was broken, Javaid inflicted "Sota" blow which hit right wrist of the complainant, Zafar Iqbal inflicted "Sots" which hit left leg of the complainant, Ali Sher inflicted pistol "butt" which hit on the back of the complainant, complainant fell down on which Javaid and Zafar Iqbal inflicted successive blow which hit different parts of the complainant body. On hue and cry of the complainant Muhammad Shafique, Nasir Abbas and many persons came there, beseeched the accused and got rescued the complainant. Complainant due to serious injuries became unconscious. Motive for this incident is that complainant's uncle Yaseen has got registered F.I.R. against Shafqat and Zafar Iqbal which is being prosecuted by the complainant whereas the accused are proclaimed offender of that F.I.R. Hence, this F.I.R.

3. The petitioner applied for his post-arrest bail before the Judicial Magistrate, who vide order, dated 19-8-2009 dismissed the same then the petitioner applied for his bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, which was dismissed vide order, dated 19-9-2009.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case was got registered with unexplained delay of 8 days in lodging of F.I.R. false implication cannot be ruled out; that occurrence took place on 17-6-2009 and F.I.R. was lodged on 25-6-2009; that the injury attributed to the petitioner is on the left hand of the injured, complainant, Mehboob Hussain are under section 337-F(v), P.P.C. which does not fall within the prohibitory clause and substantive punishment is Daman; that the , recovery of pistol is planted; that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; further submits that petitioner is previously non-convict, although there are other cases got registered but not in a single F.I.R. petitioner is convicted; that the learned trial Court refused the bail petition; that the prosecution witnesses cited in F.I.R. are closely relative one is brother of the complainant and other close relative, therefore, the accused petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.

5. Learned Assistant District Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the grant of bail on the ground that accused is named in the F.I.R.; that specific role has been attributed to the petitioner of causing injuries to complainant out of which one caused fractured; that recovery of pistol has been effected; that accused is desperate and hardened criminals; that the injured was medically examined on the same day; that Challan has been sent up before the learned trial Court.

6. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that conduct of the petitioner remained objectionable before the trial Court; that first he got ad interim bail from the Additional Sessions Judge but absented himself which was dismissed. Second petition was refused. Learned trial Court observed very bitter against the petitioner and conduct of the petitioner is discussed, therefore, he is not entitled for the concession of bail.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

8. During the investigation, one of the co-accused has been found innocent by the police. The F.I.R. has been lodged with unexplained delay of 8 days. The injury attributed to the petitioner is on the left hand of the injured, complainant, Mehboob Hussain are covered under section 337-F(v), P.P.C., which does not fall within the prohibitory clause and substantive punishment is Daman. The petitioner is no more required for the purpose of investigation as the recovery of Sota has been made which is allegedly planted one. Deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at bail stage. The petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest, further keeping him behind the bar will not serve any useful purpose. The challan of the case has been sent upto the trial Court. Petitioner is no more required for any purpose and investigation. In view of the above the accused petitioner has made out a case of further inquiry into his guilt. Sharing of common intention with other accused will be determined after recording of evidence on account of 8 days delay in lodging the F.I.R., false implication cannot be ruled out.

9. Resultantly this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However, the observations are of tentative in nature, will not prejudice the case of either side. H.B.T./S-280/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.