' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Through this application under section 497, Cr.P.C., Farmaish Abbas, petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No,-28 of 2006, dated 1-3-2006, registered under sections 324, 337-A(i), F(vi) and 302, P.P.C. At Police Station Railway Police, Lahore, on the application of Hassan Imran Bokhari, ASM, the complainant.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 1-3-2006 at about 6-50 a.m. At the time of 223 UP some unknown persons arrived at Platform No,1 at KKh and shooted unknown person, whose name was disclosed as Jumma Khan, victim Later on the supplementary statement was got recorded by the complainant alleging that co-accused Muhammad Arif caused two fire-arm injuries on the person of Ilam Din alias Jumma Khan deceased and at that time he was accompanied by the petitioner armed with pistol.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R.
And that statement of Jumma Khan, victim was recorded subsequently according to which one Muhammad Arif co-accused had fired at him; that according to the M.L.R. Arshad Mehmood son of the deceased had brought his father to the Hospital in an injured condition that his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Had not been recorded by the police till 8-1-2007, which shows Mala fide on the part of the police to involve the accused subsequently, that the deceased in injured condition also did not get his statement recorded immediately by nominating the assailants; that seven persons have been involved in this case by widening the net; that name of the petitioner has been introduced in the supplementary statement subsequently without disclosing any solid source of information about his participation in the occurrence; that statements of Ashraf, and. Asghar All (P.Ws) were recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. On 9-3-2006, while statement of Ilam Din alias Jumma Khan, victim was recorded on 19-3-2006, which creates doubt in the prosecution story; that the petitioner is behind the bars since 27-3-2006 and no more required to the prosecution; that the petitioner was only alleged to have caused fist blows to the victim, but no such injury was found during the medical examination and as such the role attributed to the petitioner calls for further inquiry, who is entitled to be released on bail.
4. The learned Addl. Prosecutor General for the State has opposed this bail petition on the ground that the trial has already commenced after framing of the charge and the P.Ws. Are continuously appearing before the trial Court, but the defence side is taking adjournments to prolong the trial and as such the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail as the offence falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
5.. -I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with due care and caution.
6. The petitioner was not named in the F.I.R., but his name was introduced subsequently in the supplementary statement without disclosing any source of information about his participation in the occurrence. The statement of Jumma Khan victim was recorded in 19-3-2006, wherein he stated that he had received fire-arm injuries from Aril co-accused. The general role was attributed to the petitioner and the co-accused for causing injuries with fists, but no such injury was found on the person of victim Jumma Khan during the medical examination. As such, there is contradiction in the medical evidence and the role attributed to the petitioner on the face of the record, who is behind the bars since 27-3-2006, but there is no likelihood of the conclusion of the trial in the near future. No useful purpose will be served to the prosecution by keeping the petitioner in jail for indefinite period, who has succeeded in making out a case of further inquiry. Moreover, commencement of the trial in such circumstances is not a ground for refusal of bail to the petitioner as there has been imposed no bar in section 497, Cr.P.C. On the grant of bail after commencement of the trial. Even under section 497(4), Cr.P.C. Bail can be granted before the announcement of final judgment. Firstly prosecution has to prima facie connect the accused with the alleged crime and if any doubt is created in the prosecution version, the benefit of the same has to go to the accused. Mere recovery of pistol from the petitioner is not sufficient to refuse the bail to him, as admittedly he had not used the same during the occurrence.
' For the foregoing reasons, the instant bail application 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 the learned trial Court.