'MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J.---Muhammad Abbas petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No,579/2009 dated 26-9-2009 offences under sections 324, 148 and 149 P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Sadar Depalpur, District Okara. Precisely allegation against the petitioner is that he along with his co-accused while armed with their respective weapons in prosecution of their common obj.Xt assaulted the complainant party and caused them injuries.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of this petition, contends that there is delay of five days in the registration of F.I.R; that after the incident the petitioner's side filed a petition under sections 22-A and 22-B, Code of Criminal Procedure, before the learned Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace and thereafter the cross-version of the petitioner's side was also recorded but subsequently the same has been cancelled; that thereafter the petitioner's side filed a private complaint against the complainant side of the F.I.R. And learned trial Court has summoned two persons then after recording cursory evidence; statement of Mst. Noor Hussain injured was also recorded in the private complaint before summoning the accused of the private complaint who was the main injured in the challan case and in her statement she has stated that she was injured by the complainant side of the instant F.I.R. And, therefore, it is a case of two versions; that injuries attributed to the petitioner are on non-vital part of the body and are covered under section 337- F(ii) P.P.C. Maximum punishment whereof is three years; that no weapon of offence was recovered from the petitioner and even it has been opined by the Police that the petitioner along with one Manzoor was empty handed; that the petitioner is behind the bars since 30-2-2010 and no more required for the purpose of investigation.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant opposes this petition on the grounds that charge was initially framed on 6-2-2010, however, the petitioner was arrested in the case on 30-2-2010 and thereafter the charge has not been framed; that delay in the registration of F.I.R. Has sufficiently been explained as the injured were medically examined on the same day and even otherwise delay, per se, is no ground to grant bail to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the complainant, however, concedes that petitioner's side has filed a private complaint wherein Mst. Noor Hussain was examined in the cursory evidence who stated that she was injured by the complainant side; that conduct of the petitioner disentitles him from the concession of bail as the petitioner filed application for pre-arrest bail on 31-10-2009 which was withdrawn on 5-11-2009 and thereafter be became fugitive from law and again he filed second petition on 14-12-2009 for pre-arrest bail wherein the fact of filing of the earlier bail petition was not mentioned, however, the second petition was dismissed on merits on 2-1-2010, that the petitioner did not surrender and was declared proclaimed offender by the Court of competent jurisdiction; that there was specific allegation that the petitioner was armed with a carbine but the Police after arrest of the petitioner did not request for physical remand and straightway sent him to judicial lock up. In support of his submission learned counsel has placed reliance on Khalida Bibi versus Nadeem Baig (PLD 2009 SC 440).
4. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General while adopting arguments of learned counsel for the complainant also opposes this petition.
5. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Allegation against the petitioner, as per F.I.R. Is that he was armed with a carbine and he caused injuries to Sakhi Muhammad and Umar Hayat.
Fire made by the petitioner landed on left knee of Sakhi Muhammad whereas Umar Hayat sustained injury on his left thigh. The Police during the investigation has concluded that the petitioner was empty handed and as such no recovery of carbine was effected from the petitioner.
The petitioner's side has also filed a private complaint against the complainant side. A woman by the name Mst Noor Hussain was also injured in the case and she sustained six injuries and her name does find mention in the F.I.R. In her statement recorded before the learned trial Court in private complaint as cursory witness, the said Mst. Noor Hussain has stated that she was injured by the firing of Younas who is from the complainant side. Therefore, it is a case of two versions, one set out in the F.I.R. And the other in the private complaint. The petitioner was arrested in the case on 30-3-2010. The mere fact that petitioner remained fugitive from law does not disentitle him from the concession of bail if otherwise his case is one of further inquiry. It has been admitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that after arrest of the petitioner charge against him has not been framed. In the circumstances, case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure. Case law relied by learned counsel for the complainant is distinguishable on facts besides each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. Therefore, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail after arrest subject to his furnishing of bail bond in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (rupees one lac only) with one surety in like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However, the learned trial Court is directed to make all possible efforts for conclusion of the trial of this case in the shortest possible time.