' IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHURY, J.---Through this application under section 497, Cr.P.C, Rab Ditta, petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No, 73 of 2006, dated 14-3-2006, registered under section 394, P.P.C, at Police Station Shah Bhore, District Okara on the application of Muhammad Shah Jehan Khan, the complainant.
2. The brief allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. Is that during thenight between 9/10-3-2006 the petitioner along with co-accused attempted to commit robbery at the tube well of the complainant and in the process of the same, the petitioner made fire with rifle 7-mm, hitting on the right thigh of Muhammad Aslam, servant of the complainant. According to the complainant, the accused while fleeing took away Rs,6,000 cash, wrist watch and tape-recorder belonging to Muhammad Aslam, who in injured condition was taken to the Hospital and due to busy in his treatment, the case was got registered on 14-3-2006.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the occurrence in the present case had taken place during the night between 9/10-3-2006, while F.I.R. Was got lodged on 14-3-2006 with the delay of four days without any explanation, which creates doubt in the prosecution story as after preparing the docket, the injured P.W. Had been sent by the police for getting the medical examination, but the case was got registered subsequently after, consultation, therefore, no sanctitycan be attached to the F.I.R.; that no blood-stained earth had been taken from the spot by the police and incident had not taken place at the place narrated by the complainant; that no empty had been recovered from the spot; that the different Investigating Officers have come to the definite conclusion that the petitioner was innocent and that it is a case of further inquiry and petitioner may be released on bail.
4. The learned Addl: Prosecutor-General for the State has opposed this bail petition on the ground that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. With specific role of causing injuries on the right thigh of the victim, which is duly supported by the medical evidence; that the offence falls within ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with due care and caution.
6. From the perusal of record, it is found that Muhammad Aslam, victim was got medically examined by the police of Police Station Shah Bhore and the medical certificate also discloses that Muhammad Aslam (victim) was not in a position to put his thumb impressions on the certificate; that he had not been got earlier medically examined. The docket is on the police file, which shows that the victim had come to the police in an injured condition and he was not taken to the Hospital by Muhammad Siddique, A.S.-I. To Police Station Shah Bhore, but through Shahzad Foot Constable No,845. The M.L.R. Also reveals that Muhammad Aslam (victim) was brought by Shahzad Constable.
If the injured was in unconscious condition then why he was taken to the police station and why the case was not registered immediately. It also falsifies the prosecution story that the injured had been first taken to the Hospital and having been remained busy in the medical treatment the case was got registered with the delay. The delay in lodging the F.I.R. Prima facie loses the sanctity of nomination of the accused by the complainant into the F.I.R. Even otherwise, admittedly it was dark night occurrence, but no source of light had been disclosed, at the place of occurrence in which the accused were identified during the occurrence. During the investigation one Rehmat Ali, who is owner of the land adjacent to the place of occurrence appeared before the police and stated that the incident had not taken place at the Tubewell, but it had been taken place near the crops. So the exact place of incident in the present case is also doubtful and during the investigation different Investigating Officers came to the conclusion that the case against the petitioner was doubtful. No recovery had been effected from the petitioner. Though the finding of the police is not binding upon the Courts, yet it can be considered for the grant of bail to an accused, if the same is based on cogent and solid reasons and supported by the evidence collected during the investigation.
' For the time being the petitioner has succeeded in making out a case of further inquiry, which is behind the bars for the last more than one year and bail cannot be withheld as punishment. The benefit of doubt at any stage of the case has to go to the accused.
' 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.