2005 PLP 1072 (MLD)

Petitioner has sought post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.251 of 2004 dated 19‑8‑2004 registered under sections 324/148/149, P.P.C. at Police Station Ghaziabad District, Sahiwal at the complaint of Muhammad Abbas.

2. Allegation against the present petitioner as narrated in the F.I.R. is that he while armed with Kassi caused injuries to Iftikhar Ahmed injured.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been declared innocent during the investigation for causing injury to Iftikhar Ahmad P.W. and recovery of alleged Kassi has not been effected frotn the petitioner rather the police effected recovery of Sota produced by one Nazir Ahmad. That during investigation Iftikhar Ahmad injured P.W. was found armed at the time of occurrence with Kassi, which was snatched by Arshad accused as there was a dispute between the parties over the watering of buffaloes in the water course. That the petitioner according to the finding of investigation was armed with Sota and was present at the spot along with Akhtar his co‑accused but no overt act was committed by the petitioner. That provisions of section 324 are not attracted as pee report of Medical Officer there was dislocation of right wrist joint and also a damage of muscles which attracted the provisions of section 337‑F(vi), P.P.C. and the delay in lodging the F.I R. has not been explained. Further submits that petitioner's case is of further inquiry and falls within the purview of section 497, Cr.P.C. That although the findings of investigation is not binding upon the Court ipso facto yet the opinion of Investigating Officer is relevant for the disposal of the bail petitions and has relied on "Zafar Iqbal v. The State" (2002 MLD 454), "Dr. Muhammad Aslam v. The State" (1993 SCMR 2288), Muhammad Ilyas v. Ijaz Ahmad Butt and another" (1992 SCMR 1857) and "Manzoor and others v. The State" (PLD 1972 SC 81).

4. On the other hand learned State Counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the bail petition alleging that an incised wound was attributed to the petitioner, who has been nominated in the F.I.R. and the injured has been remained in serious condition in the hospital and challan has been submitted in the Court of competent jurisdiction since 1‑9‑2004. Further submits that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. has been explained and case of petitioner falls in the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner has been declared innocent during investigation and the Kassi as alleged in the F.I.R. has not been recovered rather Sota has been recovered from the petitioner. According to the investigation Kassi blow has been attributed to Arshad co accused. Akhtar co‑accused was allegedly armed with Sota and he has been bailed out in this case. According to the investigation, although the petitioner was present at the spot yet, he had not committed any overt act and he was found innocent by the police. Although this Court is not bound to the ipsi dixit of police yet the same is relevant at bail stage especially when finding is with regard to the innocence of the petitioner. All the above‑mentioned acts make case of the petitioner that of further enquiry.

6. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to be admitted on bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. H.B.T./B-77/L Bail granted.