' Naeem Tahir-petitioner alongwith five others, namely, Shahid alias Shado, Afzaal Ahmed, Waqar Hussain, Imtiaz Anwar and Mukhtar Hussain stands involved in Crime Report No, 818, dated 7-11- 2002, under sections 148/324/ 337-F(i)/337-F(ii)/337-H(ii)/334/109 , P .P.0 registered with Police Station Chak Jhumra, District Faislabad, at the instance of one Muhammad Ishaq.
2. The event leading to the charge had happened on 20-10-2002 at about 9-30 a.m. In the area of Chak No,140/RB situate at a distance of twelve miles from the police station concerned.
Muhammad Ishaq, real brother of Shafique Ahmed, victim of assault, set the State functionaries into motion by getting the above said. F.I.R. Registered against the petitioner and others.
3. Allegations brought against the petitioner are that he carrying a .222 rifle made a shot on both legs of Shafique Ahmed in the form of burst. Shahid alias Shado, who was armed with a pistol also resorted to firing shots made by him struck on both right and left calf of Shafique Ahmed. Afzaal Ahmed and Mukhtar Hussain were armed with .12-bore guns, whereas Waqar Hussain and Imtiaz Anwar were carrying 7-MM-rifle and .30-bore pistol respectively. Waqar Hussain and Imtiaz Anwar incited their co-accused by raising a Lalkara to the effect that they be killed for the enmity and having opposed them. They also made shots, which remained ineffective.
4. On being arrested by the police, petitioner preferred his application for grant of post-arrest bail before learned Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, who made over the same to a learned Additional Sessions Judge for adjudication purpose. The said learned Judge after fullest evaluation of facts and circumstances of the case, proceeded to dismiss the same through his order, dated 31-3-2003 containing a variety of reasons for refusal thereof. Now he has approached this Court by filing the instant petition seeking same relief.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argues that there is eleven days' delay in reporting the matter to the police, which has not been properly explained, that at least during three investigations, police came to the conclusion that it was Shahid alias Shado, who resorted to firing at Shafique Ahmed causing him injuries on his both legs and that petitioner had made no firing at Shafique Ahmed. Instead of rifle, a 12-bore gun was recovered from him. Adds that Afzaal Ahmed, Waqar Hussain, Imtiaz Anwar and Mukhtar Hussain were found innocent by the police during course of investigation and no empties could be recovered from the spot. Lastly, he submits that case of the petitioner is fully covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Being that of further inquiry.
6. As against this, learned counsel for the State submits that name of the petitioner is mentioned in the first information report; that specific role has been assigned to him and that offence allegedly committed by him falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. He resists this petition.
7. I have consciously heard and soberly considered respective arguments of learned counsel for both the sides. Admittedly, occurrence took place on 20-10-2002 at about 9-30 a.m., whereas F.I.R.
Was lodged on 7-11-2002. Police Station is located at a distance of twelve miles from the venue of occurrence. Tahir Iqbal, father of the petitioner, lodged Crime Report No,804, dated 20-10-2002, under sections 148/324/337-F(i)/337-H(ii)/34, P.P.C., against Asim son of Shafique Ahmed, victim Of assault, and others. The petitioner is cited as witness regarding conspiracy hatched out in between the accused. Abdul Karim, a cousin of father of the petitioner, had suffered serious injuries because doctor had to amputate his left leg. Element of enmity is available, which could lead to his false implication in the case. Shaukat Ali eye-witness in his police statement, stated that petitioner was armed with a .12-bore gun, whereas Shafique Ahmed in his earlier statement before the police stated that petitioner was carrying a .222-rifle, but did not state where shot made by Naeem Tahir had struck him. Shaukat Ali alleged that Naeem Tahir made a shot through his .12-bore gun, which hit Shafique Ahmed, who had already fallen down. Three Investigating Officers, after thorough investigation came to the conclusion that although petitioner was present at the spot, yet he made no shot at Shafique Ahmed. In the F.I.R. It has been alleged by the complainant that relatives of the accused have been asking him to effect a comprothise, but he did not agree with them and for that reason delay in lodging of the F.I.R. Occurred. This can hardly be considered a valid reason for not reporting the occurrence promptly with the police.
' Excessive and unwarranted delay of eleven days in lodging of the first information report, regarding which no reasonable or plausible explanation has been afforded necessitates further probe into genuineness of the allegations against the petitioner, as there are consistent opinions of the police that he did not fire at Shafique Ahmed and because of variant statements of the witnesses. Allegations against the petitioner call for a further probe.
8. Accordingly, by accepting this petition, I direct that petitioner be released from custody, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
9. Trial Court is, however, directed to conclude trial within four months on receipt of his order.