Through the instant petition the petitioner has sought for his post arrest bail in case FIR No, 9 dated 7.1.2004 registered under Section 334/337A(ii)/337L (ii)/34 PPC at Police Station Sadder Dunyapur District Lodhran.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was unexplained delay of one day in lodging the FIR which casts grave doubt in the veracity of the prosecution. Further submits that petitioner has falsely landlord due to previous litigation between the parties that previously the father of the complainant namely Kandal got registered as case under Section 302/34 PPC against the petitioner, his mother and other close relatives for committing murder of one Lal Muhammad in which petitioner was acquitted and was now pursuing the case of co-accused pending before the High Court. Further submits that Section 334 PPC had been deleted during the investigation; that co-accused Tanvir had already been granted bail by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Lodhran; that petitioner is no more required by the police and is behind the bars for the last about four months.
3. Conversely learned counsel for the State has strongly opposed the grant of bail.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. Perusal of the police file shows that the petitioner was not armed with knife at the time of occurrence. He had injured the ear of the complainant by biting and according to the ASP (Investigation) Section 334 PPC is not attracted in the instant case and according to the prosecution case falls under Section 337A (ii)/337L (ii) read with Section 34 PPC does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. It has further been noticed that no knife had been recovered from the petitioner although he had undergone the fall length of judicial remand. Petitioner was arrested on 6.2.2004 and since then he is behind the bars. He is no more required by the police for further investigation.
5. In view of what has been discussed above I am of the opinion that the case against the petitioner falls within the ambit of further inquiry. rosecution is not in possession of incriminating material to connect the petitioner with the commission of this offence. Co-accused of the petitioner had already been released on bail, therefore, I am of the view that petitioner is also entitled to bail. Accordingly I allow this petition and admit the petitioner to bail subject of his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 3,00,000/- (three lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial.