'HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.---Through this petition, petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No,141 of 2009 dated 2-6-2009 registered with Police Station Purani Kotwali, Multan under sections 337-D/ 337-F(i)/ 379/34 P.P.C. On the complaint of Tauseef Iqbal son of Muhammad Iqbal, complainant.
2. Briefly the story of prosecution is that on 22-5-2009 at 4 p.m. Waseem Iqbal brother of the complainant was going on the road when the petitioner armed with Chhurri and in the company of co-accused way laid him. The accused snatched cash and mobile phone from him. The petitioner gave repeated Chhurri blows to him and injured him. Hence, this case.
3. Petitioner moved his post arrest bail in the Court of Sessions Judge, Multan, which was entrusted to Additional Sessions Judge, Multan who vide order dated 30-9-2009 dismissed the same.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that injury No,2 was kept under observation; that offence does not fall within the prohibitory of section 497, Cr.P.C; that injury No,1 is declared as Ghair Jaiffa which is punishable for one year; that' maximum case from the contents of medico legal report falls under section 337-F(1) and not under section 337(D) P. P.0 . ; there is unexplained delay of many days in lodging the F.I.R.; co-accused, namely, Ali Irfan was allowed bail by the learned trial Court; petitioner was arrested on 15-9-2009, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail. The case is got registered on account of family dispute between the parties.
5. Learned Assistant Deputy District Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the grant of bail on the ground that injury caused by the petitioner is on the vital part of the body abdomen of Abbas; that injured remained in hospital for eight days; petitioner is named in the F.I.R.; specific role is attributed to the petitioner; the case of the petitioner is distinguishable from the co-accused, who was allowed bail by the learned trial Court; in the investigation the petitioner was found guilty, 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. The petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. Specific role is attributed to the petitioner, who caused injury on the vital part abdomen of the injured. The case of co-accused is distinguishable from the petitioner. The petitioner cannot claim the same relief. Offence under section 337-D, P.P.C. Falls within the prohibited clause of section 497, Cr.PC. The petitioner gave repeated blows to the victim.
There is sufficient material available on record, A with connects the petitioner with the commission of offences. The victim himself implicated the petitioner, in his statement reccrded under section 161, Cr. P. C .
8. Resultantly, this petition for post arrest bail is dismissed. All observations made in this order are of tentative in nature will not prejudice the case of either side during the trial.