1995 P Cr (PLP)

Respondents 1 and 2, namely, Nasir and Arhum, respectively, who are involved in a case under section 302/334/324/337-F/148/149, P.P.C. arising out of F.I.R. No.124, dated 6-7-1993, registered at Police Station Bambanwala, District Sialkot, were allowed bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Daska, vide his order, dated 19-5-1994. Through this petition under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. Muhammad Munawar complainant seeks the cancellation of their bail.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents are involved in a case which falls within the prohibitory clause and they are responsible for the act of the principal accused, being the members of the unlawful assembly; hence the bail granting order is fanciful, perverse and contrary to the record, which may be set aside.

3. The learned counsel for the State has supported this application.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that respondent No.l was found innocent during the investigation conducted by the police agency, except some observation by an Inspector of the Crimes Branch who opined that all the accused were found involved in the case. There is positive evidence on the record to support the plea of alibi of respondent No.l. With regard to respondent No.2, learned counsel submitted that as the complainant has thrown his net very wide; hence possibility cannot be ruled out that he might have been involved being the brother of respondent No.l. Thus, the case against him too falls within the ambit of section 497(2). Cr.P.C., and he was rightly granted bail by the learned Judge.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Admittedly, both the respondents are involved in a case which falls within the prohibitory clause in view of the death of Abdul Rehman and injuries received by the injured P.Ws. Admittedly, respondent No.l Nasir was found innocent during three successive investigations; hence his case is covered A by the principle of further inquiry, as provided in section 497(2), Cr.P.C. So the bail granting order qua Nasir respondent is not open to any serious legal objection. This petition to his extent is dismissed.

6. The case of respondent No.2 Arhum is distinguishable from the case of respondent No.l, as he was found involved in all the investigations, being a member of an unlawful assembly. Bail granting order to his extent is contrary to law, because the learned Judge without adverting to the merit of the case, allowed him bail on the ground that due to the filing of the complaint the case against him seems to be of two versions, thus falling under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. I have gone through the complaint, which was filed after considerable delay. As the eye-witnesses received injuries in the transaction, so their presence at the spot cannot be disputed. Specific role has been attributed to respondent No.2, which was found correct during the police investigation hence there exist reasonable grounds to believe that respondent No.2 is involved in a case which falls within the prohibitory clause. The learned Judge; in haste granted bail to him; hence the order, dated 19-5-1994, to the extent of respondent No.2 is set aside and his bail is cancelled. He shall surrender to his bail bond and be sent to jail as under-trial prisoner in the aforesaid case. N.H.Q./M-1855/L Order accordingly.