' HABIB ULLAH SHAKIR, J.---Through the instant petition, petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No,221/2009 dated 14-3-2009 registered under sections 337-F(i), 337-F(ii), 337-A(i)/34 P.P.C. At Police Station, City Jaranwala, District Faisalabad.
2. The precise allegation against the petitioner as per prosecution story of the F.I.R. Is that the petitioner armed with razor along with two unknown persons attacked on the complainant and severely injured him.
3. Learned counsel contends that petitioner has falsely been entangled in the above-mentioned case with mala fide intention and ulterior motive. In fact the alleged occurrence took place in the darkness of night by known accused persons but the complainant involved the petitioner on the basis of suspicion as prior to the alleged occurrence, some quarrel took place between the parties otherwise the petitioner is innocent. During the course of investigation, offence under sections 324/365, P.P.C. Has been deleted due to intervention of this Court. The offences mentioned in the F.I.R. Do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than three months and no more required by the police for the purpose of investigation. The investigation has been completed and the challan has been submitted in the trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the case reported as "Tariq Bashir v. The State" (PLD 1995 SC 34).
4. Learned DPG assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed this bail petition arguing that the seat of injuries as well as nature of injuries show that offence under section 324, P.P.C. Is attracted. Even the accused persons also kidnapped the complainant and offence under section 365, P.P.C. Is also attracted and the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. So he does not deserve the concession of bail.
5. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
6. It is rightly pointed out by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that on the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge .Dated 14-2009, section 324/ 365 P.P.C. Were added vide Zimini No, 4 A dated 7-4-2009 but later on by the order of this Court, on 22-5-2009 vide Zimini No,5, sections 324/365, P.P.C. Were deleted. This conduct of prosecution makes the case highly doubtful.
Whenever any doubt arises, the benefit of doubt at bail stage could be given to the accused because the accused is favourite child of the Court. According to the contents of the F.I.R. Prima facie, the ingredients of sections 324/365, P.P.C. Are missing in this case. During investigation, no kidnapping was proved, therefore, this Court has rightly deleted sections 324/365, P.P.C. No doubt remaining offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is behind the bars since 20-3-2009 and the challan has been submitted in trial Court. The investigation has been completed and he is no more required by the police for the purpose of investigation. The recovery has been effected from the petitioner and his further incarceration in jail would not advance the prosecution case.
7. In view of above discussed, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.