The petitioner Naseem son of Baqar seeks his post arrest bail in case FIR No. 248/2003 dated 31.5.2003 registered under Sections 302/324/148/149 PPC at Police Station Sadar Arifwala, District Pakpattan.
The said case was registered at the instance of one Muhammad Yaseen against the petitioner and his co-accused.
2. The allegation as levelled in the FIR was that the petitioner inflicted a sota blow on the left arm of the complainant during a transaction in which allegedly the petitioner and his co-accused launched an attack on the complainant party. Various members of the complainant party suffered injuries and one Mst. Parveen also lost her life.
3. The petitioner was arrested on 11.6.2003. He applied for his post arrest bail which was declined by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Arifwala vide order dated 11.11.2003. Hence this petition.
4. Mian Fazal Rauf Joya. Advocate in support of his plea for bail has argued that no injury to the deceased has been attributed to the petitioner; that no recovery has been effected from him; that the petitioner is not connected with the motive part of the story; that the injury caused to the complainant Muhammad Yaseen. is on his right arm which is obviously a non-vital part; that the said injury has been declared to be falling under Section 337-L(2) which is bailable and is punishable with two years. Finally he argued that the co-accused of the petitioner namely Muhammad Shafique and Jameel have since been released on bail by the Multan Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. No. 2624-B/2003 and by the Court of Sessions respectively; that the role attributed to Shafique and Jameel co-accused were infliction of a danda blows on the head of Rustam PW. The learned counsel further argued that the case of the petitioner is on a better footing than that of Shafique and Jameel and on the principle of consistency he is entitled to the same concession.
5. Ch. Arif Mehmood, the learned counsel appearing for the State in the face of this situation that the co-accused with identical role have been released on bail by this Court heartedly opposed the grant of bail.
6. I have considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties at length.
7. Without undertaking deeper appraisal of the merits or otherwise of the case lest it may prejudice the case of the prosecution, it is not denied that co-accused Shafique and Jameel who had been attributed slightly aggravated roles in the FIR have been allowed bail. I find the case of the petitioner at par with the said co-accused other than the fact that Shafique was a minor. Keeping in view the role played by the petitioner according to the FIR i.e. that he caused only a simple injury on a non-vital part of a P.W. without even touching the deceased, his case becomes one of further enquiry within the meanings of Sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. The question of vicarious liability would be determined at the time of trial.
8. Consequently, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.