' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- The petitioner Umar Usman seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R.
No,336, dated 7-5-2005 registered under sections 302/324/337-F(III)/427/109/148/149, P.P.C. At Police Station Saddar Sheikhupura.
2. The occurrence in the present case had taken place at 1-30 p p.m. When the complainant along with his brother Sabir Hussain deceased, Nasir and Ali Raza nephew was going on a Pajero Jeep bearing Registration No,329 towards their fields. They were in the way when a case came in which Umar Hayat alias Kallo, Ilyas, Umar Usman petitioner, Riaz Kamboh, and Yaqoob who were also armed with fire-arm were sitting. They all of a sudden had stopped the car in front of the vehicle of the complainant party and came out of the car. Sabir was driving the Pajero and Ali Raza was sitting on front seat. Umar Usman petitioner fired at Sabir Hussain hitting on his face. Umar Hayat also fired hitting on the chest of Sabir Hussain. Ilyas also fired hitting Ali Raza on his neck. The other accused also fired and Sabir Hussain received injuries on left leg. In the meantime Sabir Hussain also fired with his licensed rifle in self-defence at accused Umar Usman who received injuries during the incident. The wind screen of the vehicle of the complainant was also broken. The complainant also fired in self-defence and the accused succeeded in running away. Sabir Hussain died at the spot. The motive behind the occurrence is that brother of Umar Hayat and Ilyas etc. Was murdered some time ago and the accused suspected that Sabir Hussain deceased helped co-accused of Farooq deceased. The occurrence according to the complainant had taken place at the instance of Abbas who hatched conspiracy with the co-accused about the commission of the present occurrence.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Umar Usman petitioner received four fire-arm injuries and one sharp-edged weapon injury but said injuries have not been explained and after the perusal of the F.I.R. It reveals that Sabir Hussain deceased had made fire after he had received the injuries and according to the post-mortem report six fire-arm injuries were found on different parts of his body. It is next contended that Sabir Hussain could not fire at the accused after receiving such type of injuries. It is also contended that Umar Usman petitioner was aged about 17 years one month and 25 days at the time of incident and on an application moved to the learned trial Court he has been declared juvenile and his case has been separated. It is also contended that recovery of alleged weapon of offence has been planted upon the petitioner who had received serious injuries during the incident and he was not in a position to go to his home for keeping the weapon in the safe custody when the police itself had prepared the docket and also referred the petitioner to the hospital for medical examination. It is also contended that due to the influence of the complainant party the version of the petitioner and the co-accused has not been incorporated in the daily diary and the matter has not been investigated properly.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand opposes this application on the ground that the F.I.R. Was got lodged with promptitude wherein specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner and the medical evidence also supports the ocular account, that Umar Hayat, Ilyas and Yaqoob are still fugitive from justice and the delay in the conclusion of the trial is due to the absconsion of co-accused and that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. The learned State counsel also opposes this petition.
6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with due care and caution. The petitioner was arrested by the police on the same day i,e, on 7-5- 2005 and according to the police record he had received serious injuries who was unable to move and he was sent to hospital through Hidayat Ullah constable. The said injuries were not properly explained by the complainant party as according to the medico-legal report the petitioner had received four fire-arm injuries and one incised wound. It prima facie casts some doubt in the prosecution story regarding commission of the occurrence in the manner narrated by the complainant. Even otherwise the petitioner has been declared juvenile, who was allegedly aged about 17 years one month and 25 days at the time of incident and vide order, dated 12-11-2005 he has been declared juvenile, whereupon his case has been separated. The recovery of weapon of offence from the possession A of the petitioner prima facie is also doubtful as when he was unable to move according to the record of the police after sustaining the injuries it was not possible for him to take the weapon and conceal the same in his house. In such circumstances the case of the petitioner is of further inquiry and it appears that the complainant had not spoken the whole truth who prima facie has concealed certain facts. Though the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Has been submitted in the Court but under section 497, Cr.P.C. An accused is entitled to the grant of bail at any stage when he succeeds in making out a case of further inquiry. Bail cannot be withheld as a punishment that the co-accused have not been arrested. In the above circumstances this application is accepted and the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1, 00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. Bail after arrest granted. 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.