The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No, 665 dated 04.06.2010 u/S. 337-F(i), 337-F(iii), 337- F(iv), 337-L(ii) and 452 PPC registered at P.S New Multan District Multan.
2. Allegedly, on 31.05.2010 at about 8.30 p.m. the complainant alongwith witnesses was present in her house when the petitioner armed with pistol alongwith his co-accused entered the house by breaking its door and co-accused persons inflicted injuries with their respective weapons upon the persons of complainant and the witnesses, hence, the FIR.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no overt act has been attributed to the petitioner. He is only alleged to have entered the house of complainant alongwith his co-accused while armed with pistol. Thirteen accused persons have been nominated in the FIR with ten unknown persons. There is also delay of four days in lodging the FIR, which has not been explained properly so possibility of false implication of the petitioner cannot be ruled out. It is argued that civil litigation is also pending between the parties, as both of them have filed civil suits against each other. Two other FIRs have been got registered by both the sides against each other. It is further argued that as per; FIR the complainant received injuries with fire-arms while according to medico legal report she sustained two injuries caused by blunt weapons and even no person has received any injury with the fire-arm. These facts are also verified by the District Standing Medical Board so there is a material contradiction between the ocular account and the medical evidence. It is further argued that the complainant side has been declared aggressor by DSP in his report.
4. On the other hand, learned ADPP for the state has urged that the petitioner is nominated in the FIR with specific role of breaking the door of the house. The weapon of offence i,e, pistol is yet to be recovered.
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. No overt act has been attributed to the petitioner. He is only alleged to have entered the house while armed with pistol. He also did not cause any injury to any person. Thirteen named accused besides ten unknown persons have been mentioned in the FIR. Civil as well as criminal litigation is also pending between the parties. As per medico legal report, two injuries on the person of the complainant have been found to be caused with blunt weapons, which contradict the FIR wherein the injuries are alleged to be inflicted with fire-arms. Even no person is found to have sustained any injury with fire-arm. The District Standing Board has also verified this fact that no fire-arm injury has been caused to any person. There is also unexplained delay of four days in lodging the FIR. The complainant categorically levelled allegations of firing against the co-accused but no damage has been caused to anybody by any fire shot. Even no empty could be recovered by the police from the spot despite the fact that two persons were alleged to have made firing during the incident. The case of the petitioner is one of further inquiry. The element of widening the net to involve the petitioner with ulterior motive in the present case is apparently made out. I have been guided by the cases reported in 2008 YLR 22, 2008 MLD 237 & 2006 YLR 723. It has been held in 2008 YLR 22 Lahore that: "Only role of ineffective firing was attributed to accused and no empty was recovered from the spot, despite the fact that seven persons were alleged to have made firing during the incident-- Chance of false involvement of accused in the case by the complainant with mala fide intention and ulterior motive could not be ruled out by widening the net, as the civil and criminal litigation was pending between the parties--Role attributed to accused was not supported by any connecting evidence--Accused could not be sent behind the bars merely for the reason that weapon of offence was to be recovered from him, which would not advance the prosecution case any further as no empty was recovered from the spot--Pre-arrest bail could be granted, if accused succeeded in making out a case of further inquiry."
In these circumstances, false implication of the petitioner in this case cannot be ruled out. Instant bail petition is accordingly accepted and the ad-interim bail already granted to him is hereby confirmed subject to furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 100,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court within seven days of this Order.