2011YLR 566 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD ANWAAR-UL- HAQ, J.

Through this petition Muhammad Faizan petitioner seeks -post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 859, dated 7-8-2010, registered at Police Station Baghbanpura, Lahore in respect of offences under sections 496-A, 511, 427, 337-F(i), 337-L(2), 337-H(2) and section 324, P.P.C.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner, who is son-in-law of the complainant, is not named in the F.I.R. rather his name was subsequently added through supplementary statement of the complainant and even in the supplementary statement no specific role has been attributed against the petitioner except an ineffective fire; that the complainant is not with clean hands and has concealed the basic factum of Nikah of her daughter namely Mst. Tayyaba Tanvir, with the petitioner, and the complainant who is very much annoyed on this marriage, has falsely involved the petitioner in this case. Learned counsel further contends that after the arrest of the petitioner complainant party made a murderous assault upon the petitioner and caused him seven firearm injuries in police custody; that F.I.R. No. 964, dated 12-8-2010, under sections 324, 186, P.P.C., has been registered on the statement of a police official; that application of sections 496-A and 324, P.P.C. is a matter of further inquiry in this case and that can only be determined after recording of evidence.

3. Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant while vehemently opposing this bail application maintains that petitioner is named in the supplementary statement of the complainant on the same day with a specific role of ineffective fire; that the complainant and her daughter Mst. Tayyaba Tanvir do not accept the story of marriage and that is just a fabrication of the petitioner to save his skin; that a suit for jactitation of marriage has already been filed against him by Mst. Tayyaba Tanvir; that the petitioner remained absconder for a long time and he is vicariously liable for the acts of his co-accused; that a pistol .30 bore has also been recovered on the pointation of the petitioner during the investigation. Lastly maintains that case against the petitioner falls with in the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and he is not entitled for the concession of bail. Investigating Officer present, however, confirms that two co-accused of the petitioner nominated in the F.I.R. Muhammad Farhan and Muhammad Usman have been declared innocent after thorough investigation.

4. Heard. Record perused.

5. Admittedly, petitioner is not named in the F.I.R., no specific role has been attributed to him and only an ineffective fire has been alleged against him in the supplementary statement. Attached copy of Nikahnama, copy of statement recorded by the daughter of the complainant in a private complaint, against him and pendency of her suit for jactitation of marriage against the petitioner are sufficient to prove that petitioner was not unknown to the complainant, and in this background non-mentioning of his name in the F.I.R. is sufficient to make his case one of further inquiry as contemplated under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Two nominated accused in the F.I.R. have been declared innocent by the police and in this view of the matter, application of sections 496-A/511 and 324, P.P.C. can validly be determined by the trial Court after recording of evidence is this case.

6. In view of the above, I without going into further details of this occurrence, accept this petition and admit the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing , bail bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

7. It is however clarified that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition. H.B.T./M-559/L Bail granted.