'HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.---Through this petition, the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 239/2009 dated 6-5-2009 registered at Police Station Seetal Mari, Multan, under sections 302, 337-A(ii), 337-A(i), 337-F(ii), 337-L(ii), 109, 148, 149, P.P.C. At the instance of Azhar Abbas, complainant.
2. Brief facts as narrated in the F.I.R. Are that on 6-5-2009 at 10-30 a.m. Sh. Saleem, Naeem, Waseem armed with daggers, Sh. Rafique, Sh. Zaheer, Mehboob armed with Chhuries, Muhammad Shabbir petitioner armed with Sota, Riaz alias Bundu armed with dagger in prosecution of their common object attacked the wagon stand of the complainant and caused injuries to the complainant. Zafar Abbas brother of the complainant, Nadeem Sabir, Ansar Iqbal and Zafar Iqbal, who died due to said injuries while Muhammad Shabbir accused caused a Sota blow, which hit on the right leg of Javed driver. The motive behind the occurrence was that two days before the occurrence, there was an altercation between Ansar Iqbal and Zafar Iqbal deceased and Sh.
Saleem etc. Accused persons on a matter of charging Bhatta by Sh. Saleem etc. Accused persons from the complainant party, hence, this F.I.R.
3. The petitioner applied for his pre-arrest bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 3-12-2009. Then, petitioner was arrested on 3- 12-2009 and produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Multan for physical remand. During the course of investigation, Investigating Officer has opined at the petitioner did not participate in the occurrence and nothing was recovered from him. Petitioner was declared innocent and the discharge report was prepared by the Investigation Officer and submitted before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Multan, who disagreed with the discharge report and sent the petitioner to Judicial lockup on 10-12-2009. After that, petitioner filed his post-arrest bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Multan which was entrusted to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan who vide order dated 24-12-2009 dismissed the post arrest bail petition of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case; there is unexplained delay of two and half hours in lodging the F.I.R. As the police station is just at distance of kilometer from the place of occurrence; petitioner caused an injury with a Sota to Muhammad Javed, P.W, which injury according to MLC was declared as 337- L(ii), P.P.C, is bailable; attraction of sections 148, 149, P.P.C. Will be determined after recording the evidence by the learned trial Court; petitioner was declared innocent during investigation and discharge report was submitted by the Investigating Officer for discharge of petitioner from the case before Judicial Magistrate, who disagreed with the same, which makes the case one of further inquiry; the injury caused on the body of the deceased is not attributed to the petitioner; nothing was recovered from the petitioner during the investigation and case against the petitioner is of further inquiry; mala fide on the part of the complainant and local police is that on sitting M.P.A. Support the complainant party, petitioner is working at another ADDA which does not belong to the complainant and accused party assigned specific role in the F.I.R; petitioner is previously non-convict and non-record holder; the petitioner is behind bars since his arrest and his further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose, therefore, petitioner is also entitled for the concession of bail.
5. On the other hand, learned D.D.P.P. Assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant submits that it is promptly lodged F.I.R; petitioner is named in the F.I.R. With specific role; version of the prosecution is supported by statement of P.W.s recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. And also by M.L.C. Of Muhammad Javed (injured); offence under section 302 falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Petitioner remained fugitive from law and did not appear before the police for about six months, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Weapon of offence is not recovered from petitioner and petitioner remained on physical remand during the investigation. The Investigating Officer of the case declared the petitioner innocent and prepared the discharge report which is submitted before the learned Judicial Magistrate, who disagreed with the same, which makes the case one of further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner. Petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and challan of the case is submitted before the learned trial Court but trial has not commenced, no useful purpose would be served while keeping the petitioner behind the bars for indefinite period if he is found guilty in the trial he will be convicted and sentenced accordingly. If he is acquitted there will be no compensation for depravation of his liberty by putting him behind the bars in case of refusal of bail. Reliance can be placed on the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court reported as Tariq and others v. The State PLD 1995 SC 34. A few lines from the referred Tariq Bashir's case (supra) are reproduced hereunder:-- "The ultimate conviction and incarceration of a guilty person can repair the wrong caused by as mistaken relief of interim to him, but no satisfactory reparation can be offered to an innocent man for his unjustified incarceration at any stage of the case, albeit his acquittal in the long run."
8. In the light of above discussion, this bail petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However, observations made above are of tentative nature and those will not effect the case of either side.