' KHURSHID ANWAR BHINDER, J.---The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,423/2008, dated 2-6-2008 registered under sections 324/354, P.P.C. 13/20/65 A.0 at Police Station Shandara Town Lahore.
2. Precise allegations against the petitioner as per narration of F.I.R. Are that he had outraged the modesty of sister of the complainant while she was on her way to Bazar and had also resorted to firing on the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that false case stands registered against the petitioner as petitioner married the sister of the complainant and the complainant was not happy on this marriage and had asked the petitioner to divorce his sister but the petitioner did not adhere to that. He further submits that recovery of pistol and rifle which has been effected from the petitioner is in fact are his licensee weapons and were not recovered from the place of occurrence, rather police had malafidely recovered it subsequently from his place of residence. No crime empties were recovered from the place of occurrence. He has referred to the affidavit sworn by one of the witnesses of the occurrence Muhammad Yousaf, who has stated that no such occurrence has ever taken place. He further argues that nobody got injured at the place of occurrence. As regards section 354, P.P.C., learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is not made out against the petitioner as per facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last 8 months for an offence which he has not committed.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant opposes bail application of the petitioner and submits that recovery of .30 bore pistol and rifle 7 MM has been effected from the petitioner which is sufficient enough to connect him with the commission of said offence. He further submits that section 354, P.P.C. Is fully made out against the petitioner as he had outraged the modesty of sister of the complainant. He further argues that section 324, P.P.C. Is also fully made out against the petitioner as he had opened fire first with pistol and then subsequently with rifle which clearly shows his intention to murder.
5. Learned DPG also opposes bail application of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. With specific role and he has also referred to the statement of remaining P.
Ws. Who fully support the version of F.I.R., therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned DPG and have also perused the record. There is no denying the fact that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. With specific role but at the same time this court has to see as to whether provisions of law under which the present petitioner is liable to be tried with are made out against him or not. Admittedly, sister of the complainant is the wife of the petitioner and there was no reason for him to outrage the modesty of his wife at an open place, therefore, section 354, P.P.C. Is not made out against the petitioner. As regards section 324, P.P.C., there is no denying the fact that the petitioner did resort to firing but it did not hit anyone and nobody got injured. Moreover, no crime empties were recovered from the place of occurrence. Had the occurrence genuinely been taken place then there was no reason for the police not to collect crime empties from the place of occurrence. Merely recovering of licensee weapons of the petitioner from the place of occurrence does not involve the petitioner with the commission of said offence, therefore, commission of offence under section 324, P.P.C. Is also doubtful. As regards, section 13/20/65 of Arms Ordinance, learned counsel for the petitioner has presented license of both the weapons which have been recovered from the petitioner, therefore, none of the offences mentioned in the F.I.R. Are made out against the petitioner as per reasons mentioned above.
7. Under the circumstances, petitioner's case is that of further inquiry into his guilt. I, therefore, admit the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to his A furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (rupees fifty thousand), with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned trial court/Illaqa Magistrate.
Petition stands disposed of.