' Through this petition the petitioner has sought for his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,413 dated 23- 12-2003 registered under section 337-A(ii)/337-L(ii)/452/148/ 149 at Police Station, Sarai Sidhu, District Khanewal.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that all the co-accused of the petitioner had already been granted pre-arrest bail by this Court vide order dated 7-4-2004 in Crl.
Miscellaneous No,978-B of 2004; that the petitioner is no more required by the police for further investigation and the offence with which the petitioner had been charged does not fall with the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
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.
Admittedly the co-accused of the petitioner had been granted pre-arrest bail by this Court whereas petitioner's bail before arrest was withdrawn by the learned counsel as no ground for pre- arrest bail was available. Admittedly he was armed with hatchet and had used the same causing injury on the head of the complainant Akbar which had been declared by the doctor as Shujah Mudihah attracting imprisonment for 5 years which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. F.I.R. Had been lodged with unexplained delay of 2 days.
' Only single blow is attributed to the petitioner and he had not repeated the same although the complainant was at the mercy of the petitioner, which shows that he had no intention to cause any further injury to the complainant. He was arrested on 7-4-2004 and since then he is behind the bars. His further detention in Jail would not serve any useful purpose. According to police record the hatchet was recovered on 11-4-2004, which was not stained with blood and was produced by the petitioner himself at the Police Station so it cannot be said with certainty that this hatchet was used by the petitioner in the occurrence. Only evidence, which remains on file against the petitioner was that of the injured P.W. Keeping in view to that all the co-accused of the petitioner had already been released on pre-arrest bail and a single blow had been caused by the petitioner which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Coupled with the fact that F.I.R. Was lodged with unexplained delay of two days and recovery of hatchet does not provide any corroboration to the prosecution version: The accumulative effect of all these is that the case against the petitioner is not free from doubt and falls within the ambit of further inquiry entitling him to be released on bail. Accordingly I allow this petition and admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.