Petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No. 625 dated 12.9.2004, registered at Police Station Ghulam Muhammadabad District Faisalabad in respect of offence under Section 324/34 P.P.C.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the precise allegation against the petitioner as levelled in the F.LR registered at the instance of complainant is that of raising lalkara by the petitioner whereas the co-accused had fired a shot and injured Akram Masih a servant of the complainant. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that the petitioner alongwith his co-accused had resorted to reckless firing. The apple of discord was stated to be a previous registration of case by the complainant against Ali Shan co-accused. Hence the F.I.R was registered.
3. In support of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is delay of 14 hours in lodging the. FIR; that barring the role of raising lalkara/ululation and resorting to ineffective firing no role has been attributed to the petitioner; that as far as the role of resorting to reckless firing is concerned, the same has not been supported by the attending circumstances inasmuch as no empty shell of bullet or cartridge was recovered from the spot; and that the petitioner has been languishing in jail since 21.05.2005 but the trial has not yet started, so much so the charge has not been framed. He adds that the petitioner is real nephew (Bhanja) of the complainant- who has grabbed 3% acres land of petitioner's mother. Further maintains that to perpetuate his illegal possession of the said land the complainant does not want to see the petitioner outside the jail. On the basis of the said submissions, he has submitted that a case of further enquiry has been made out in favour of the petitioner who is entitled to bail.
4. On the other hand learned the Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by the complainant has submitted that the petitioner is specifically named in the F.I.R. and there was strong raison' detre for the petitioner and his co-accused for the commission of this offence inasmuch as previous to lodging of this F.I.R. a case was got registered by the complainant vide F.I.R. No.396, dated 30.05.2004, in respect of offence under Section 302/34 PPC wherein it was alleged that the petitioner and his brother had committed murder of a servant of the complainant; that the role of lalkara/ululation attributed to the petitioner was a commanding one. He adds that the petitioner remained absconder for quite a long time and on this score also the, petitioner is not entitled to bail. While exercising the right of rebuttal, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has already been acquitted in the murder case on the basis of a compromise.
5. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties, I have gathered that the occurrence in this case had admittedly taken place in the dark hours of night and according to the complainant, the accused were identified in the light of a torch. A perusal of F.I.R reveals that the petitioner has been saddled with the liability of raising lalkara/ululation and resorting to reckless and ineffective firing. When queried, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General after perusal of the police file has candidly admitted that no empty/shell of any bullet or cartridge was recovered from the spot. According to the complainant there was a strong raison detre against the petitioner and his brother for the commission of crime but interestingly enough instead 'of attacking their arch enemy, the brother of the petitioner had allegedly shot dead the servant of the complainant. Even otherwise motive being a double edged weapon, possibility of false implication of the petitioner cannot be ruled out, especially considering the role attributed to the petitioner.
6. As observed above, the allegation of reckless firing is not getting support by the attending circumstances as admittedly neither any live bullet nor any shell of bullet was recovered from the spot. All these circumstances show that a case of further enquiry, within the meaning of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C, into the guilt of the petitioner has been made out and therefore, he is entitled to bail as a matter of right. The objection that the petitioner remained absconder, at first blush appeared as a formidable one. But on minute examination it has evaporated in the air, inasmuch as bail is normally refused on said ground by way of propriety. However, it cannot be lost sight of that, as already observed above, the case against the petitioner calls for further enquiry into the guilt of the petitioner. In case of calling for further enquiry into the guilt of the accused, bail is granted to such accused persons as a matter of right. It goes without saying that whenever a question of propriety is confronted with a question of right then the latter must prevail as has been laid down in a case of Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafiq and another (PLD 1989 'SC 585). Further reliance in this regard is placed upon cases of Noor Ullah and 2 others v, The State (PLD 2000 Quetta 72 (DB), Zakir Hussain etc. v. The State (2000 YLR 752) and Jamshed Ahmad v. The State (2003 YLR 1378). The aforementioned objection raised by the complainant loses importance yet for another ground i.e the petitioner was arrested in this case on 1.05.2005 and despite the expiry of 25 months charge has admittedly not been framed till date. Although, there is no concept of pre-trial punishment yet the petitioner has already undergone the said sentence before trial.
7. For what has been stated above, I am inclined to grant post arrest bail to the petitioner, Consequently, this application is accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two surties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. 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.