2007 P Cr (PLP)

HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.

Through this application Muhammad Saleem alias Papoo has sought post-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No.88 of 2005 dated 5-6-2005, under sections 324/364, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Dehli Gate, Multan.

2. The F.I.R. in this case was lodged at the instance of Mst. Nighat Yasin alias Shazia, who alleged that before the occurrence she had filed a suit for dissolution of marriage against the petitioner who was her husband. During the pendency of the suit, she was allegedly taken away to Chak No.337/G.B. Tehsil Kamalia, by her mother and brother namely Liaquat Ali. On 13-3-2005 she was caught hold of by Muhammad Yasin and Ramzan co-accused while his brother Shaukat Ali and the petitioner threw acid upon her body due to which she fell on her mother namely Mst. Shakila Mai. The bodies of both of them got burns of acid. She further alleged that she got admission in Nishtar Hospital, Multan, from where, she was discharged on 25-5-2005. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 20-9-2006. He applied for bail after arrest which was refused by the learned Courts below, hence this petition is submitted.

3. In support of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the offence was allegedly committed within the jurisdiction of police station situated at Kamalia, but the case was registered illegally at Police Station Dehli Gate, Multan; that there is inordinate delay of three months in lodging the F.I.R.; that there is allegation of throwing the acid jointly by two accused upon the victim and it is yet to be determined whether the petitioner or Shaukat Ali co-accused, had committed the said crime. He adds that the mother of the victim who was admittedly present at the time of occurrence, had refused to support the complainant, who is her real daughter.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that at the relevant time victim having been admitted in hospital, delay in lodging of F.I.R. was natural. He adds that the case was registered on the application dated 28-3-2005 submitted by the victim to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace, Multan. He adds that the petitioner is duly named in the F.I.R. and as such, he is not entitled to bail.

5. After hearing both, the parties and going through the record, it has been noticed that at the first blush this case seems to be pertaining to a horrendous act but scrutinizing all the facts, it can be noticed that the act is after all not grave enough to brutalize justice. The facts pointing to this conclusion are that the F.I.R. in this case was lodged with the inordinate delay. The occurrence was allegedly committed in a village situated in Tehsil Kamalia, but nobody got the case registered there. The mother of the victim who had also allegedly received acid burns in the same occurrence, had refused to support the case of the complainant. Rather, she has filed an affidavit exonerating the petitioner from the alleged offence. According to the victim, Shaukat Ali brother of the victim and the petitioner jointly threw acid on her body. The improbability of commission of the said offence by two accused jointly and the fact that out of two, who was responsible for the crime, are the questions which would require further inquiry. During the process of whole investigation, baring one witness, nobody had come forward to support the case of the victim. In the light of the circumstances of the case the question of applicability of sections 324 and 364, P.P.C. would also be requiring further inquiry. The petitioner is behind the bars since 20-9-2006. During the investigation no incriminatory material was recovered at the instance of the petitioner. As far as the contentions of the learned counsel for the complainant that the petitioner remained fugitive from law is concerned, perusal of the record has shown that neither the victim nor her witnesses had been appearing before the Investigating Officer. The petitioner was arrested after recording the statement of one witness who joined the investigation after passing so many months. No proceedings under sections 87/88, Cr.P.C. were initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on 20-9-2006, yet trial has not started. The petitioner cannot be detained in jail for indefinite period. It is established law that mistaken relief of grant of bail can be repaid at the time of conclusion of the trial, but the accused who is finally found innocent cannot be compensated for the incarceration undergone by him due to the refusal of bail. It is also settled law that the benefit of doubt can be given even at bail stage. Considering the pros and cons of the case, I have come to the conclusion that the petitioner has become able to make out a case for grant of post-arrest bail. Consequently, this application is accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (two lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./M-128/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.