Muhammad Amin petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 214/2005, dated 04.11.2005, for offence under Sections 302, 324, 148 and 149 P.P.C., registered at Police Station Ganda Singh Wala, District Kasur.
2. The brief facts of the case are that father of the complainant Rehmat Ali was murdered by the petitioner and others who were armed with fire-arm weapons.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that autopsy report was in direct conflict with the account furnished by the complainant and the witnesses inasmuch as the injury shown to have been caused by the petitioner did not exist on the body of the deceased; that even if it be presumed that the witnesses had referred to Injury No, 2 as the one caused by the petitioner, even then the same was of no avail to the prosecution as the said injury was an exit wound caused by the shot fired by Khizar Hayat co-accused; that although pistol was recovered from the petitioner during the investigation but the same was of no consequence as the petitioner had not caused any injury to the deceased; that essentially the case was of two versions as the cross-version alleged by the accused side had been found to be genuine and the trial in respect thereof was also in progress; that although the trial had commenced but the report of the learned trial Court revealed that a considerable time would be consumed in conclusion of the trial as the main case as well as the cross-version case lodged by the accused were being tried together.
4. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General has vehemently opposed the petition.
5 I have heard the learned Counsel and gone through the record.
6. The petitioner has been ascribed only one injury to the deceased in the F.I.R which is stated to be on the forehead of the deceased above the right eye. The autopsy report, a copy of which is available on the record, reveals that no injury had been suffered by the deceased on the forehead above the right eye. Even if it be presumed that the injury on the right eye had been caused by the fire attributed to the petitioner, the same still does not support the prosecution case as the Medical Officer in the report has held that the same is an exit wound of Injury No, 1 inflicted on the right side of the head of the deceased by Khizar 'Jaya co-accused with a .30 bore pistol. Thus, it is evident that the ocular account is in direct conflict with the medical evidence. Apart from the injury referred to above no other injury has been caused by the petitioner to the deceased or any other person.
The learned Deputy Prosecutor General has candidly conceded that Injury No, 2 attributed to the petitioner is an exit wound and not a wound of entry. Further it has been noticed that five persons from the accused side were injured during the occurrence whose injuries have been suppressed in the F.I.R. A complaint case based on cross-version of the accused is also .being tried by the learned Court along with the main case. Thus, prima facie it is a case of two versions and it is yet to be seen at the trial as to which party was the aggressor. Further the question as to whether the petitioner is vicariously liable for the act of his co-accused, can be answered at the trial after recording of evidence. The recovery of pistol from the petitioner during interrogation is of no consequence as apparently the fire attributed to the petitioner is not supported by the medical evidence. Since the trial had commenced, therefore, a report was requisitioned from the learned trial Court which reveals that on account of the main case as well as the counter-version complaint case being tried together a considerable time would be required for concluding the trial. The learned Deputy .Prosecutor General on query states that there are total 21 witnesses, mentioned in the challan and so far only six formal witnesses have been examined. Thus, it is obvious that the trial is at its initial stage and will consume a considerable time. The petitioner is behind the bars since December, 2005 and although nearly two years have 'elapsed the conclusion of the trial is not in sight. The argument that since the trial has commenced, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of bail is without any substance because if a person is entitled to bail on merits, the benefit thereof cannot be withheld merely on account of commencement of trial.
7. For what has been stated above, I accept this petition and ALLOW bail to the petitioner subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000/-, with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
8. It is pointed out, that any observation made by this Court here-in-above is tentative in nature and shall not in any manner influence the learned trial Court.