2003 PLP 1845 (MLD)

Sabir petitioner through the instant petition seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.285 dated 16-10-2002, under sections 324/148/149, P.P.C. registered with Police Station, Muhammad Pur, District, Rajanpur.

2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. is that on 16-10-2002 at about 12-30 noon, Usman Shah, Suleman Shah, Ibrahim Shah, Rehman Shah, Ismail Shah, Paira Shah, Sabir Shah, Amir Shah, Ghulam Ali Shah and Aziz Shah all armed with .12 bore guns in prosecution of the common object of unlawful assembly formed by them had attempted to commit Qatl-e-Amd of Mulazam Hussain, Mst. Jameel Mai and the complainant Ghulam Rasool. He (petitioner) had fired with .12 bore gun to Mulazam Hussain hitting on his forehead, clavicle and bicept, who fell down. Usman Shah had fired with similar gun at Mst. Jameel Mai hitting at the back of her left hand, Ghulam Ali Shah had also fired with the similar gun hitting on her left shoulder, arm and bicept. Ismail accused had also made fire shot hitting on her right hand's finger. The remaining had also made fires at the complainant but he laid on the ground and so saved himself.

3. The motive behind the occurrence is that 1-1/2 years prior to the same a quarrel had taken place between the parties in which Rasool Bakhsh, Sher Shah, Sohanra Shah, Khadim Hussain Shah and Riaz Hussain Shah had injured Paira Shah and the case in respect of the same was registered against Rasool Bakhsh and others. On grudge over the same the above act has been committed by them.

4. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in by the complainant party due to enmity which stands admitted in the F.I.R.; that the injury attributed to him does not attract the offence under section 324, P.P.C. and at the maximum it can be under section 337-A(i), P.P.C. as neither there had been found any fracture nor the same was declared dangerous to life; that even otherwise, he during the investigation was found innocent and report regarding his discharge was prepared by the local police but the learned Ilaqa Magistrate did not agree to the same, that he is behind the bars for the last more than eight months; and that he is previous non Convict.

5. Conversely, the learned State counsel has opposed the petition on the ground that he is named in the F.I.R.; that he had caused injuries to Mulazam Hussain, P.W. on his forehead, calvicle and bicept; and that he in the last investigation conducted by Rao Akbar, DSP was found involved in the matter and so he is sufficiently connected with the offence.

6. I have carefully, considered the submissions made from both the sides with the help of-available record.

7. Though allegedly he has fired straight shot at P.W. Mulazam Hussain hitting on his forehead, left clavicle and left upper arm (bicept) but admittedly in the investigation conducted by Syed Noor Hassan, DSP, he has been found innocent and report regarding his discharge from the case was prepared. The finding of his innocence has been expressed in the case diary recorded by him on 9-11-2002. As against the same, there is also on the police record case diary No.19 recorded on 16-4-2003 by Rao Akbar, DSP/SDPO, Jampur. He has found him involved in the matter. Any way, the fact remains that there is conflict in the opinion of two police officers of the same rank in respect of question of his involvement in the matter. The opinion of the police though is not binding upon the Court but at the same time it is relevant circumstance to be taken into consideration as regards the question of grant or otherwise of bail. It is also settled proposition in law that benefit of every doubt is to be given to the accused even at bail stage.

8. The finding of innocence in his favour leaves room for further inquiry into the question of his guilt and so his case is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.

9. He is stated to be behind the bars for the last more than eight months and previous non-convict. In these circumstances, this petition is accepted and he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./S-694/L Bail granted.