' HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.---Imran alias Mani son of Muhammad Rafiq, through the instant petition, seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,344 dated 25-8-2007, registered with Police Station Seetal Mari, Multan, at the instance of Rana Sanaullah, for offences under sections 302/324, 148/149, P.P.C. Petitioner has been declined bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, vide order dated 7-7-2009, hence this petition.
2. Brief story, as narrated in the F.I.R. Was that on 25-8-2007 at about 4.00 pm, the petitioner as well as his other co-accused while armed with fire-arms, with their common object caused injuries on the person of Habeebullah, Rana Sanaullah (complainant), Abdul Waheed and Fida Hussain, and later on Habeebullah expired as a result of the said injuries. The petitioner has been attributed the role of causing an injury on the left chin of the deceased with pistol. Motive alleged in the F.I.R. Was that Abdul Aziz from the complainant party used to ply wagons and Abdaal etc., of the petitioner- accused party demanded Jagga tax from the complainant side, which was complained to Habibullah Lambardar (deceased), brother of the complainant, who asked the accused party to desist from demanding Jagga tax, hence the occurrence.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the injury attributed to the petitioner was caused on the left chin of the deceased, which is not a vital part of the body and the same has been declared simple by the doctor. Learned counsel makes reliance on Ghulam Rasool v. The State (PLD 1981 SC 234); that in the MLR/post-mortem report of the deceased all the injuries which are mentioned as cause of death of the deceased, none is not attributed to the present petitioner, that Baghdad co-accused was allowed post-arrest bail by this Court vide order dated 22-4-2008 in Criminal Miscellaneous No,289-B/2008; that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than two years since 29-9-2007. Further submits that up till now not a single witness has been recorded from the prosecution side, that the whole family of the petitioner side has been involved in the case.
4. Learned DDPP, assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, has opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner by contending that 16 injuries were found on the body of the deceased, weapon of offence was recovered from the petitioner. Further submits that there is no delay on the part of the prosecution in the conclusion of the trial; that the accused were proclaimed offenders and on account of that there was no progress in the trial. Further submits that one of the reasons for delay is that the accused party submitted an application for getting declared the accused to be juvenile, for which purpose a Medical Board was constituted which took two months; that the F.I.R. Was promptly lodged; that the case falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; that the petitioner has been found guilty in the police investigation with specific role and with specific injury.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with the assistance of DDPP. The injury attributed to the present petitioner Imran is on the left chin of the body of the deceased, which is not a vital part of the body, rather the said injury has been declared simple by the doctor. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than two years and there is no material progress of the trial. Therefore, I allow this petition and admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
6. All the observations made in this bail-granting order are of tentative in nature and will not prejudice the case of either party during the trial.