2013 PLP 1133 (YLR)

ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.--Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. Muhammad Ashiq petitioner has sought bail after arrest in cross-version of case F.I.R. No.494 of 2012, dated 1-9-2012 registered at Police Station Illah Abad, District Kasur in respect of offences under sections 337-A(ii)/337-F(ii)/337-L(2)11481 149, P.P.C. The offences of corss-version are under sections 337-A(i)/337-F(i)/337-F (vi)/354/34, P.P.C.

2. The learned counsel for the' petitioner contends that the petitioner has been roped in this case by the complainant of cross-version with mala fide intention and ulterior motives after joining hands with the local police. The F.I.R. in the instant case has been got recorded by brother of the petitioner. Co-accused of the petitioner has also been allowed bail and the accused of F.I.R. had already been allowed bails. The law is quite settled that in cross-version if one party is allowed bail then other party also becomes entitled for the same treatment. The offences with which the petitioner is charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and in such like cases bail is a rule and its refusal is merely an exception. Nothing has been recovered from the petitioner during the investigation of this case. He is previous non-convict, the investigation of this case is complete, the person of the petitioner is not required by the police for further investigation, thus, his continuous incarceration in jail would not serve any beneficial purpose at this stage.

3. On the other hand the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant after going through the record submits that the petitioner is named in the cross-version wherein specific role of causing injury to the injured victim is attributed to him. The role attributed to the petitioner is borne out from the Medico-legal Certificate of the injured victim. There is absolutely no mala fide on the part of the complainant to falsely implicate the petitioner in this case. The prosecution witnesses in their statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. duly involve the petitioner in this case. Provisions of section 354-A, P.P.C. are attracted in this case regarding which an application has already been moved. The petitioner is a police employee and he is continuously issuing threats to the complainant of cross-version and in this way he is tempering with the evidence of the complainant of cross-version. During the investigation of this case the petitioner has been found guilty.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. It has been noticed that initially the F.I.R. was recorded on the statement of Muhammad Asghar brother of the present petitioner. Later on cross-version was put forwarded by Muhammad Safdar accused of the F.I.R. The co-accused of the petitioner and accused of the F.I.R. have already been allowed bail in this case. Law is settled that in such like cases if one party is allowed bail then other party also becomes entitled for the same treatment to pursue its case. Reliance in this regard is placed on PLD 2009 SC

58. The offences with which the petitioner is charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and in such like cases bail is a rule and its refusal is an exception. Admittedly the _ petitioner is previous non-convict. The cross-version was got recorded by the accused party of the F.I.R. with considerable delay. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 27-11-2012 and since then he is behind the bars, investigation of this case is complete, there is no further chance of an early conclusion, of petitioners trial in near future thus his continuous incarceration would not serve any beneficial purpose at this stage.

5. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for inquiry into his guilt covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This Petition is, therefore, allowed and the D Petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

6. Before parting with this order it is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove are just tentative in nature and the same are strictly on fined to the disposal of the instant bail petition. The learned trial Court shall proceed with the trial without being prejudice from any observation. MWA/M-7/L Bail granted.