' HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.--- Through this petition, petitioner Shakeel son of Waryam seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,403 of 2008 dated 12-12-2008 registered at Police Station Sahuka, District Vehari, under sections 411, 379, 336, 335, 324, P.P.C. At the instance of Muhammad Nasir son of Falak Sher, complainant, respondent No,2.
2. Brief facts of the case as unfolded in the F.I.R. Are that on 11-12-2008 at about 5 p.m. When the complainant was going to one Lala Dogar for the collection of money on motorcycle and was going through Chak No,311/E.B., he received a phone call of Shakil, who asked the complainant to meet him at his land and when the complainant reached near the place of occurrence, the accused persons while armed with rifle and shotgun waylaid the complainant and took him to an unknown place. Shaukat Ali cut the tongue of the complainant with blade and his co-accused threw acid in the eyes and face of the complainant. Consequently, the complainant was seriously injured. Hence, this F.I.R.
3. Petitioner applied for post-arrest bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Burewala, who vide order dated 16-4-2009 refused to grant bail to the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to mala fide intention and ulterior motive; there is unexplained delay of one day in lodging the F.I.R.; neither any role is attributed to the petitioner nor the petitioner was present at the spot at the time of occurrence; participation of the petitioner in the alleged occurrence will prove at the time of trial but the prosecution witnesses, thus, petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for indefinite period; that petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and his further incarceration will serve no useful purposes; no motive is attributed in the F.I.R. To the petitioner; no rule is attributed to the petitioner, motive is attributed to Sarfraz and Shaukat sons of Allah Bakhsh; only Rs,2,000 was recovered from the petitioner; recovery of money is no recovery at all as these notes were not marked as there was no identification mark on notes; the co-accused, Amjad was allowed bail by this Court vide order dated 20-9-2009 in Criminal Miscellaneous No,2729-B of 2009 under the principle of consistency petitioner is also entitled for the same relief; further submits that the case of the petitioner is distinguishable and is at a better footing than Amjad, co-accused as weapon of offence gun was recovered from the co-accused, Muhammad Amjad, whom bail was allowed. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.
5. Learned DDPP assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant submits that there is promptly lodged F.I.R.; petitioner is named in the F.I.R.; main accused is Muhammad Shakeel present petitioner, who telephoned and called the complainant where main accused petitioners were present whom role is attributed; petitioner is found guilty; Challan under section 173, Cr.P.C.
Has been submitted before the learned trial Court; charge has been framed; even, statement of one P.W. Has been recorded in the case; the case of the present petitioner is distinguishable from Muhammad Amjad co-accused, who was named through supplementary statement and his name does not figure in the F.I.R. While name of the petitioner is mentioned in the F.I.R.; petitioner is a main accused, who caused injuries to the complainant; that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
7. Although name of the petitioner Muhammad Shakeel is present in the F.I.R., who only telephoned the complainant but no overt act is attributed to Muhammad Shakeel. He did not injure anybody or any attribution of injury is mentioned in the F.I.R. Other co-accused, namely, Muhammad Amjad was granted bail by this Court. Although he was implicated in this case through supplementary statement. Challan has been submitted before the learned trial Court. Petitioner is no more required for any recovery or investigation. Recovery of Rs,2000 was effected from the petitioner and only weapon of offence is recovered. Petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and his further incarceration in the jail will serve no useful purpose. It is, Shaukat, co-accused, who chopped off the tongue of the complainant with blade not the petitioner, nor Shakeel as inadvertently mentioned in the bail granting order dated 29-9-2009 in Criminal Miscellaneous No,2729-B-09. In view of the above circumstances, further investigation is needed into the guilt of the petitioner.
8. Resultantly, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However, observations made above are tentative in nature, will not prejudice the case of either side during the trial.