Muhammad Maqsood S/o Muhammad Ali petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 366/2008 dated 31.07.2008 offence under Section 324/34 PPC registered at Police Station Muzaffarabad, District Multan.
2. It is inter alia contended that the petitioner is not named in the FIR, therefore, no question of attribution of any role arises. The complainant is real father of the petitioner whereas injured PW is first cousin of the petitioner. Supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded after six days wherein the petitioner was implicated. The petitioner who is aged about 16 years; that supplementary statement recorded after delay of 6 days is of no value in the eyes of law. Two accused were impugned in the FIR. One petitioner and co-accused Mst. Rashida who is wife of the injured PW. To the extent of Mst. Rashida, the complainant has effected compromise. All PWs mentioned either in _ the FIR or supplementary statement are real brother of the injured PW. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last about 10 months. Bail cannot be with held by way of punishment. The conclusion of trial is not in sight in near future. The petitioner's case therefore calls for further inquiry, therefore, prayed for acceptance of instant bail petition.
3. Conversely learned Deputy Prosecutor General vehemently opposes the bail petition and submits that the injured PW has implicated the petitioner as well as Mst. Rashida wife of injured.
PW; that both the petitioner as well as co-accused Mst. Rashida attacked him with a view to commit his murder. Further submits that the injured PW became unconscious and upon recovery of health and with the permission of the Doctor his statement was recorded on 15.08.2008.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. Admittedly principal accused/co-accused Mst. Rashida has been allowed bail by the learned Sessions Judge. Admittedly ad-interim pre-arrest bail to Mst. Rashida principal/co-accused was confirmed vide order dated 07.10.2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Multan, in view of conceding statement having been made in her favour by the complainant as well as injured PW.
The case of the petitioner is not only at par with the co-accused already granted bail rather on better footing. He is behind the bars since 07.08.2008 and by now it is well settled law that bail cannot be with held by way of punishment. Arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner does have force that this petitioner is also entitled to the grant of bail on the principle of consistency. He is also aged about 16 years. Therefore, I am of the considered view that case of the petitioner calls for further inquiry. In view of above this petition is allowed subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
With these observations this petition stands disposed of.