2000 PLP 743 (YLR)

Petitioner seeks his post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.495 of 1997, dated 22‑10‑1997 registered under section 302/‑365/148/149, P.P.C., at Police Station City Khanewal.

2. According to the facts narrated in the F.I.R., case of the prosecution is that on 11‑10‑1997 at about 7‑15 a.m. when the complainant came out of his house alongwith his daughter namely Mst. Shazia to resume his duty, Riaz, Tariq Mehmood the petitioner, Mst. Shamim Akhtar wife of Riaz Ahmad were standing on the road near Gaushala. They raised Lalkara that they would teach a lesson to the complainant for not vacating the house. Further that Riaz and Tariq Mehmood, the petitioner, caught hold of the complainant and started beating him with fists. They gave fist blow on the back of his ribs, face and on his left hand. Riaz and Tariq Mehmood, the petitioner, dragged the complainant and, thereafter, pushed him into sullage water. On raising alarm by the deceased, his wife and Khalil Ahmed, P.W., reached there. Mst. Shamim wife of Riaz torn Dopata of the daughter of the complainant. In the meantime, Zafar Bakht and Yaqoob, co -accused, also reached there who took the complainant while dragging into the Baithak of Khalid Mehmood where they threatened the complainant on gun point. In the meantime, departmental vehicle of the complainant reached there and he was rescued from the clutches of the assailants.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the occurrence took place on 11‑10‑1997 and report was lodged on 22‑10‑1997. The delay of eleven days in lodging the F.I.R., has not been explained by the prosecution. Further submits that case F.I.R. No.478 of 1997, dated 14‑10‑1997 was registered by the petitioner against the deceased at the first instance with regard the same occurrence as it was the deceased who gave injuries to the father of the petitioner. Further contends that only fists blows have been attributed to the petitioner which clearly show that he never had the intention to commit murder, thus, finally argues that case of the petitioner comes within the ambit o1 further enquiry, hence, he is entitled to the concession of bail.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the grant of bail on formal grounds that petitioner named in the F.I.R., and that specific role ha been attributed to the petitioner. Further argues that case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of propitiatory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., hence, he is not entitled to the concession of bail.

5. We have heard arguments advance by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of instant case minutely.

6. Delay of eleven days in lodging the F.I.R., has not been explained by the prosecution which itself is sufficient to bring the case of the petitioner within the ambit c section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Registration of c as F.I.R. No.498 of 1997, dated 11‑10‑199 against the complainant is another factor t bring the fact that it was a case of two versions and it is yet to determined by the trial Court that which party was aggressor. 1 such like cases, grant of bail is a rule, so keeping in view the dictum laid down in case titled "Shoaib Mehmood Butt v. Iftikhar-ul-Haq and three others 1996 SCMR 1845, petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the tune of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. N.H.Q. .70/L Bail granted.