' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Through this application under section 497, Cr.P.C. Muhammad Ashraf Bhatti (petitioner) seeks post-arrest bail in a case F . I. R . No . 658-2005 , dated 18-12-2005, registered under section 338-C, P.P.C. At police station Sabzazar, Lahore on the application of Muhammad Akram, the complainant.
2. The brief facts as alleged in the F.I.R. Are that the complainant was an employee of IV-Class in the Provincial Government and resident of Tibba Raiwind. On 15-8-2005, the complainant along with his wife Mst. Kausar Bibi, who was pregnant reached Multan Road, Bismillah Chowk, New Madina Colony, Dobbanpura Kharak, Lahore for the purpose of delivery and due to the severe pain, the complainant after perusal of board "Al-Naseeb Clinic" inquired from a person present there, who told his name as Dr. Muhammad Ashraf Bhatti (petitioner). He informed the complainant that a Gynae Specialist was present in their clinic and pain of the patient would be removed within 10 minutes. On hearing this, the complainant got admitted his wife and he himself sat outside for waiting. From 12-30 a.m. 'he was asked to wait for 10-minutes and when it was 12-00 at midnight on the protest of the complainant, it came to know that neither there was any Gynae Specialist nor Dr. Muhammad Ashraf Bhatti was present there, who while deceiving the complainant got admitted his wife in the clinic and after calling some nurse from the Mohallah, his wife was handed to her.
Resultantly, due to their negligence and unawareness from the womb of the wife of complainant during the delivery procedure, the child was killed and poison also spread in the womb of his wife.
Moreover, they had also removed the womb of the wife of the complainant and due to the misstatement of the petitioner not only the child had died but also wife of the complainant was deprived of giving birth to any more child for ever. At 12-00 at midnight due to the serious condition of the patient the complainant had taken the patient to Jinnah Hospital, Lahore where he had come to know about the negligence and fraud of the accused persons, who had grabbed Rs,30,000 from the complainant. Then for the purpose of treatment at Jinnah Hospital, Rs,2,00,000 were spent by him. After discharge from the Hospital, when the complainant contacted the petitioner, he threatened the complainant for killing him and asked him to go wherever he intended as no body could cause him any loss. Hence, the F.I.R.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is behind the bars since 24-2- 2006 and nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner; that the bail cannot be withheld as a punishment; that except the oral statements of the witnesses, no documentary evidence is available on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime; that the complainant had himself got admitted his wife in the Jinnah Hospital on 15-8-2005 at 2-00 p.m. And labour pains also started, who was advised for emergency lower segment, but according to the report, the patient had ignored the medical advice; that the complainant and his wife were responsible for the said incident, who instead of getting the treatment from the same Hospital, had left it while ignoring the medical advice of their own; that the petitioner had been falsely implicated in the present case for taking some money from him as the complainant is a blackmailer as is visible from the contents of F.I.R., hence the petitioner may be allowed bail.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant and the State have opposed this bail petition on the ground that the complainant had no enmity for false implication of the petitioner in the present case and the offence falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. That the petition for bail before arrest of the petitioner had been dismissed by this Court vide order, dated 24-2-2006 and the petitioner is not entitled to the post-arrest bail.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with due care and caution.
6. Except the oral statements of witnesses and the complainant, no documentary evidence has been collected by the police during the course of investigation to prima facie connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime. From the documentary evidence attached with the petition, the wife of the complainant earlier remained admitted in the Jinnah Hospital, where the complainant was directed to pay amount in advance as expenses of the operation of delivery, but there is no evidence that what amount was settled between the parties at the time of delivery of wife of the complainant. It is also evident from the documentary evidence that the complainant himself had taken his wife from Jinnah Hospital on 15-8-2005 at 2- 00 p.m. Without giving intimation to the staff of Jinnah Hospital when he was advised by the Doctor concerned about the delivery through operation and then case of his wife became serious due to severe pains. Whether the petitioner had joined hands in the miseries faced by the complainant and his wife is a question to be resolved by the learned trial Court after recording the evidence. The petitioner is in jail since 24-2-2006 and his person is no more required to the police for further investigation, which is complete and nothing is to be recovered from his possession. For the time being, the petitioner has succeeded in making out a case of further inquiry, covered by section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
' For the foregoing reasons, the instant bail petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Judicial/Maga Magistrate. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.