2007 PLP 1672 (YLR)

TARIQ SHAMIM, J.

Through this petition, the petitioners seek bail after arrest in the case F.I.R. No.186 of 2005, 'dated 21-6-2005 for offences under sections 506/337-H(ii)/148/149, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Mitroo, District Vehari.

2. The brief fact of the case are that on the day of the occurrence the petitioners and their co-accused while armed with different weapons trespassed into the "Ehata" of the complainant and resorted to aerial firing after extending threats of dire consequences and on the arrival of Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Zafar P.Ws. the petitioners and their co-accused left the place of occurrence.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the case was investigated by the local police as well as the D.S.P. (Investigation) who directed the S.H.O. to prepare cancellation report. However, the investigation was transferred to D.S.P. (Investigation) Headquarter who after a thorough probe deleted sections 379 and 452, P.P.C. hence the case against the petitioners was doubtful; that no empty has been recovered from the spot which further belies the prosecution story; that co-accused of the petitioner namely Abdul Hayee has been granted bail by the learned trial Court and keeping in view that all the accused have been assigned same role, under the law of consistency, the petitioners are also entitled to the concession of bail; that no recovery has been effected from Akram petitioner; that offences punishable under sections 506/337-H(ii), P.P.C. are not hit by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and the rule laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in such-like cases is fully applicable. Further contended that the only role assigned to the petitioners is of ineffective firing and no one was injured from the complainant side hence the case of the petitioners is one of further inquiry and they are entitled to the concession of bail.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the petitioners were nominated in the F.I.R. and specific role had been assigned to them; that 'after the occurrence the petitioners absconded; that the challan has been submitted and charge has been framed in the case. Further that the weapons of offence have been recovered from Aslam and Abdul Rauf petitioners as such they are not entitled to the concession of bail. 5 &

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Admittedly, there is delay of seven days in lodging of the F.I.R. and on account thereof false involvement of the petitioners cannot be ruled out particularly as there is litigation pending, between the parties regarding the "Ehata" in question where the occurrence took place. The D.S.P. (Investigation) after investigating the case had recommended cancellation of the case however, on re-investigation, the D.S.P. (Investigation) Headquarter deleted section 379 and 452, P.P.C. whereafter only sections 506 and 337-H(ii), P.P.C. remain against the petitioners. Section 337-H(ii), P.P.C. is a bailable offence whereas the provisions of section 506, P.P.C. are not prima facie attracted to the case of the petitioners. In any case the offences are not punishable with death, transportation for life or with ten years hence the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tariq Bashir v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34) is fully attracted to the case of the petitioners. Further no empty has been recovered from the spot which further makes the case of the prosecution doubtful as according to the F.I.R. extensive aerial firing was done by the petitioners. No recovery has been effected from Akram petitioner and the co-accused namely Abdul Hayee has already been granted bail by the learned trial Court hence keeping in view the rule of consistency, the petitioners are also entitled to the concession of bail as the role assigned to the said Abdul Hayee is identical to the one assigned to the petitioners. The petitioners are behind the bars since 30-3-2006 and apparently there is no progress in the trial. A tentative assessment of the evidence on the record reveals that prima facie Connection is not enough evidence on the record to connect the petitioners with the commission of the alleged offences. 7-A. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the petitioners are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./M-219/L Bail granted.