2010 PLP 1071 (YLR)

CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.--Petitioner Muhammad Naeem alias Neemun through the instant petition has sought for post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.164 under section 324 read with section 34 P.P.C. registered with Police Station Sarai Siddhu, Tehsil Kabirwala, District Khanewal on 14-5-2009.

2. The facts of the case were recorded in my order dated 26-10-2009, on the similar petition bearing Crl. Misc. No.3205/B/2009 of his co-accused Ali Imran. I, therefore, avoid to repeat the same here.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that he earlier had sought for bail by way of the aforesaid petition but it was withdrawn on the said date i.e. 26-10-2009 to his extent. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has contended that the instant application has been made on the same facts, hence it is barred. I am afraid that this contention is not with force in view of the principle enshrined in the case of "Muhammad Riaz v. The State" (2002 SCMR 184) as my said order goes to show that it was a withdrawal simpliciter and that petition was not argued on his behalf at any length. So, there is no bar in bringing the instant petition in view of the above esteemed authority.

4. The only allegation against him in the F.I.R. is that he had made fire in the air with .30 bore pistol. There is no other allegation against him in the same. His co-accused Ali Imran to whom pistol shot at the right leg of injured Ghulam Shabbir has been attributed, stood allowed bail vide their afore-referred order of this Court. Hence, I am very much clear in my mind that his case is better than him for the purposes of bail. He, therefore, is entitled to bail on this ground alone. The question of his sharing common intention definitely is to be gone into at trial.

5. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that his trial has commenced and so he may not be shown indulgence. Similar aspect was dealt with by me in my order of the said date as regards the case of Ali Imran. It was held therein that mere commencement of trial is no ground to withhold the concession of bail to an accused, when he may, otherwise, be found entitled to the same. In this regard, I place reliance upon the case of "Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafique and another" (PLD 1989 SC 585). I, therefore, find that there is nothing in his way to the grant of the relief to him.

6. I, therefore, accept this petition and allow bail to him subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./M-62/L Bail granted.