' SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI, J.---The petitioner has applied for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No,195 of 2006 dated 29-4-2006 under section 435, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Joharabad District Khushab.
2. As per F.I.R. On 25-4-2006 at about 8-00 p.m. Petitioner and his co-accused, Khan Muhammad set on fire wheat crop belonging to the complainant. The case was registered at the instance of Muhammad Bashir and petitioner was accordingly arrested on 25-5-2006. Hence this bail application.
3. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Further submits that there is delay of four days in lodging the F.I.R. And the same has not been explained by the complainant, which makes the prosecution story doubtful. He contended that Khan Muhammad has been nominated by complainant in F.I.R. But during investigation he was found to be innocent, therefore, prosecution story becomes doubtful. He further contended that petitioner is in judicial lock-up since 25-5-2006 but no P.W. Has been examined so far and that offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. , therefore, petitioner deserves concession of bail.
5. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant as well as State have opposed this application on the grounds that petitioner is named in the F.I.R.; that he damaged the wheat crop of the complainant; that delay in lodging the F.I.R. Has been explained and that now case is fixed for 16-9-2006 for prosecution evidence.
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties with care. As mentioned above the allegation against the petitioner is that he along with his co-accused, Khan Muhammad set on fire wheat crop belonging to the complainant. There is unexplained delay of four days in lodging the F.I.R. And petitioner is entitled to get benefit of the same. As per F.I.R. Khan Muhammad, co-accused was present at the scene of occurrence at the relevant time but learned counsel for the State submits that during investigation he (Khan Muhammad) was found to be innocent. The petitioner is in judicial lock-up since 25-5-2006 but according to learned counsel for the parties, no P.W. Has been examined so far. The offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. In these circumstances without going into merits of the case, I find it a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner. As such application brought by him is accepted and he is allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However if petitioner fails to appear before learned trial Court on any date of hearing the trial Court would be competent, to cancel his bail.
The observations made in this order would not prejudice case of either party during trial.