Through this petition, petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 90/2009 dated 14.04.2009 registered at Police Station Ghazi Abad, District Sahiwal, under Sections 334, 337-F(i), 148, 149 P.P.C. at the instance of Qari Muhammad Ramzan, Complainant, Respondent No, 2.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 02.04.2009 he alongwith Ahmad Ali went to round his lands, when they reached in Square No, 164 Qilla No, 23 petitioner alongwith Muhammad Yousaf, Muhammad Nawaz, Muhammad Siddique, Muhammad Zakir and Shakir came at the spot alongwith their weapons. They caused injuries on the person of Ahmad Ali and cut off right arm of Ahmad Ali. The role attributed to the petitioner is that he gave blow on the left arm of Ahmad injured. Motive behind the occurrence is that Ahmad Ali divorced the sister of Yousaf and Siddique co-accused had contracted marriage, hence, this FIR.
3. Petitioner applied for his post-arrest bail before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Chichawatni, who vide order dated 08.08.2009 dismissed the same. 'Thereafter, petitioner filed his post-arrest bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chichawatni, who vide order dated 28.08.2009 also dismissed the same. Petitioner applied for his post arrest before this Court through Crl. Misc.
No, 3210-B-09, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 08.10.2008 thereafter petitioner applied for his post-arrest bail through Crl. Misc. No, 4976-B-09 which wasdismissed for non- prosecution vide order dated 03.02.2010.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case; there is unexplained delay of 12 days in lodging the FIR which give rise to presumption of false implication; first bail petition bearing Crl. Misc. No, 3210-B-09 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 08.10.2008 after arguing the case and second bail petitioner bearing Crl. Misc. No, 4976-B-09 was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 03.02.2010; further submits that petitioner is behind the bar since 03.05.2009 near about more than one year; further submits that in the FIR it is alleged that Muhammad Yousaf inflicted injuries with Kassi; Muhammad Yousaf caused injuries with Kassi on the right "Dola" on the same place injury with hatchet attributed to the petitioner; further submits that after recording of evidence it will be determined that by whom this fatal injury is caused on the "Dola" of the injured Ahmad Ali because the injury on the same, place is attributed to two persons; further submits that motive is not attributed to the petitioner; petitioner is previously non-convict and non-record holder, therefore, petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.
5. On the other hand, learned D.D.P.P vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that petitioner is nominated in the FIR with specific role of causing injury on the "Dola" of the left arm; offence falls within the Prohibitory Clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C; accused repeated blows to the injured PWs; one eye-witness and injured witness have recorded their statements; medical evidence corroborates the ocular account of the FIR, 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. There is unexplained delay of 12 days in lodging the FIR which give rise to presumption of false implication which goes in favour of the petitioner accused. Motive is not attributed to the petitioner.
The injury caused on the Right "Dola" of Ahmad Ali is attributed to Muhammad Yousaf as well as to present petitioner it will bedetermined after recording the evidence that who caused the same, which makes the case of the petitioner one of further inquiry. During the investigation, Zakir has been declared innocent by the police, which also makes the story of the FIR doubtful. Co-accused, namely, Muhammad Nawaz and Muhammad Siddique were allowed bail by this Court through Crl.
Misc. No, 2723-B-09 vide order dated 15.07.2009. Petitioner is previously non-convict and non- record holder. Petitioner was arrested on 14.4.2009. Petitioner is behind the bar for the last more than one year. Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been filed before the learned trial Court.
Petitioner is no more required for any probe or investigation. Petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an indefinite period as a punishment. If the petitioner is found guilty in the trial he will be convicted and sentenced accordingly. If the petitioner is acquitted there will be no reparation 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Tariq Bashir etc. us. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34):- "The ultimate conviction and incarceration of a guilty person can repair the wrong caused by as mistaken relief of interim bail granted to him, but no satisfactory reparation can be offered to an innocent man for his unjustified incarceration at any state of the case, albeit his acquittal in the long run."
8. In the light of above discussion, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post- arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 3,00,000/- 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.