' Through.This petition, the petitioner has sought for the relief of his post-arrest bail in a case F.I.R.
No,103 of 2003 dated 10-6-2003 registered under sections 324/452, P.P.C. At Police Station Gellay Wal, District Lodhran on the grounds, that he has been falsely implicated in this case; that there is ten days delay in lodging the F.I.R.; that no overt act has been attributed to the petitioner; that only Lalkara has been ascribed to him; that the petitioner's case is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Which needs further inquiry, therefore, he is entitled for the relief claimed for.
2. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the complainant assisted by the learned State Counsel has opposed the petition on the grounds that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R.; that delay in lodging the F.I.R. Has already been explained in the F.I.R.; that commanding Lalkara has been attributed to the petitioner, that the offences complained are applicable against the petitioner and fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Therefore, he is not entitled for extraordinary concession of bail.
3. Heard both the parties. Record perused.
4. It evinces from the record that there is more than ten days' inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R.
To which no plausible explanation is forthcoming on the record. It has also come on the record that no overt act has been attributed to the petitioner nor injury has been ascribed to.Him. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that commanding Lalkara has been attributed to the petitioner at the time of commission of crime complained, it cannot be determined at this stage, it will be seen at the time of trial. The learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments has drawn my attention towards the fact that the petitioner is at the age of octogenerarian. His case is covered under the proviso of section 497, Cr. P . C .
5. As stated above since no injury has been attributed to the petitioner and only part of the petitioner as alleged in the F.I.R. Is that he aimed with his weapon at the relevant time which was snatched. Keeping in view the part ascribed to the petitioner at the time of commission of crime complained, in my view, the case of the petitioner as well as also needs further inquiry into his guilt and falls under section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
6. In this view of above discussion, further detention of the petitioner in judicial lock-up will not serve any useful purpose, therefore, he is held entitled for concession of.Bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,30,000 (Rupees thirty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.