' Petitioners namely Muhammad Nawaz and Sooba have sought their post-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No.418 of 2004 dated 26-10-2004 registered on the complaint of Muhammad Khan son of Mashooq Ahmad under sections 302/324/ 148/149, P.P.C. At Police Station, Sarai Sadhu District, Khanewal.
2. Precisely the allegation against the petitioners is that on 25-10-2004 at 11-15 p.m.
Petitioner/accused Muhammad Nawaz while armed with .12 bore gun gave fire shot to Allah Ditta dicease0 when he was lying on the ground and his fire shot landed on his right thigh.
Petitioner/accused Sooba was also armed with .12 bore gun who gave two fire shots which landed on the different parts of the person of Mashooq and Adnan injured P. Ws.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Muhammad Nawaz, petitioner/ accused was arrested on 17-10-2004, while Sooba accused/petitioner was arrested on 1-12-2004. That during the course of investigation accused/petitioner, Muhammad Nawaz has been declared innocent and a discharge report was submitted but the learned Illaqa Magistrate disagreed with it and Muhammad Nawaz petitioner/accused was challaned in Column No.2 at the mercy of Court.
Further submits that Sooba accused/petitioner is aged 80 years and during the course of investigation he was found present at the spot but he admittedly did not participate in the occurrence. That no recovery has been effected from the petitioners. That whole family of the petitioners has been roped in this case. Further submits that case of petitioners is one of further inquiry and relies on "Meeran Bakhsh's case" PLD 1989 SC 347 and "Ghulam Rasul v. The State" 2002 PCr.LJ 113. Further submits that the accused whose name is placed in Column No.2 of the challan on the basis of police opinion about his innocence, is entitled to bail and relies on "Farzand Ali v. The State" 1993 M LD 2548.
4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the bail petition and submits that accused/petitioners are named in the F.I.R., specific role has been attributed to them. That challan in the case has been submitted in the Court of competent jurisdiction on 30-12-2004.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.
Accused/petitioner namely Muhammad Nawaz was arrested on 17-10-2004 whereas Sooba accused/petitioner aged 80 years was arrested on 1-12-2004 and they are in the judicial lock-up since then. Muhammad Nawaz as well as Sooba petitioners have been challaned in Column No.2 after having been declared innocent during the course of two successive investigations. So their case falls within the ambit of section 497 (2), Cr.P.C. No recovery has been effected from the present accused/ petitioners. The injuries attributed to the present petitioners/accused were not on the vital part of persons of the injured P. Ws. And were also declared simple.
6. Petitioner No.1, Muhammad Nawaz is son of petitioner No.2, Sooba. Other family members of the petitioners have also been involved in this case. The trial is not likely to be concluded in near future and petitioners cannot be put behind the bars for an indefinite period. All these circumstances make petitioner's case that of further inquiry.
7. For what has been discussed above the petitioners are allowed bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 each, with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.