2008 PLP 2021 (YLR)

HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.

Through this application Muhammad Khalid-petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.1322 of 2005, dated 24-12-2005, registered at Police Station, Jaranwala, District Faisalabad, in respect of offences under sections 324/148/149, P.P.C.

2. Precise allegation against the petitioner is that on 19-12-2005 at 1-00 p.m., he, along with five named and two unnamed co-accused, armed to the teeth, attempted to assassinate the complainant and his brother Shafique. During the occurrence, the petitioner shot at Shafique, injured P.W. and injured his right thigh. The motivating factor behind the occurrence was stated to be a refusal of the complainant, a day before the occurrence, to accommodate the petitioner and his co-accused, who used to extort the money from the people on the gun-point.

3. Heard. The relevant record appended with this petition perused.

4. I have straightaway noticed that the occurrence was reported to the police with an inordinate and unexplained delay of about six days. Certified copy of Medico-legal Report, appeared with this petition, reveals that during the occurrence, Shafique Ahmed, injured P.W., had received a fire-arm wound on the lower part of his right thigh. Though, the injured P.W. was completely at the mercy of the petitioner and his co-accused, but admittedly, the petitioner did not repeat the fire. Therefore, the question, as to whether the petitioner, indeed, wanted to assassinate the injured P.W., would be requiring further probe.

5. As far as the claim of the prosecution that the petitioner and his co-accused used to export the money from people on the gun point is concerned, the Investigating Officer did no collect any material in this regard, as is stated by the police officer present in Court. In response to a query put by this Court, Muhammad Ishaq, A.S.-I., has failed to point out that previous to this occurrence, petitioner was ever implicated in any case of extortion.

6. Besides, the alleged recovery of pistol at the instance of the petitioner, prima facie, does not advance the case of the prosecution, as, according to the contents of the F.I.R., the petitioner had caused an injury with a .222 bore rifle and not with a pistol. Moreover, not a single empty-shell of any bullet was recovered from the spot, as is admitted by the above-mentioned police officer.

7. To cut it short, a case of further enquiry into the guilt of the petitioner within the purview of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. has been made out, to say the least. After making out a case of further enquiry, the accused persons become entitled to bail as a matter of right not as a grace or concession. Such right cannot be denied on the basis of practice and propriety, which demands that after commencement of the trial, normally bail should not be allowed. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the cases of Muhammad Umar v. The State and another PLD 2004 SC 477; Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafique PLD 1989 SC 585; Muhammad Saleem v. The State PLD 1989 Lah. 233; Shaukat Hayat and others v. The State 1997 PCr.LJ 524 and Muhammad Asghar v. The State 2007 PCr.LJ 2007.

8. Besides that, the petitioner has been languishing in jail since 3-2-2006 but the trial has not yet been concluded. Early conclusion of the trial is right of every accused but the petitioner has been denied such right.

9. For what has been stated above, the application in hand is accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs) with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./M-137/L Bail granted.