Through the instant petition, the petitioner has sought for his post-arrest bail in case FIR No, 489/2011, dated 07.06.2011, offence under Sections 302, 148, 149, PPC, registered with Police Station, Saddar Jaranwala, Faisalabad.
2. Allegation against the petitioner, in brief, as per contents of the crime report is that on 07.06.2011 at about 10:30 a.m. he alongwith his co-accused while armed with pistol made fire shot landing on the right leg of Ameer Ali. Due to the injuries received during the occurrence, Ameer Ali succumbed to the injuries at the spot.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has falsely been involved in the instant case by the complainant against the actual facts and circumstances. It is argued that though as per contents of the crime report there is allegation against the petitioner that he made a fire shot landing on the right leg of the deceased, but no such injury is available on the postmortem report of the deceased. It is contended that the injury ascribed to the petitioner is an exit wound.
Learned counsel submits that though pistol has been shown to be recovered from the petitioner, but as no crime empty was recovered from the place of occurrence, therefore, the same does not advance the prosecution case. Learned counsel submits that these facts and circumstance make the case against the petitioner to be one of further inquiry falling within the ambit of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. It is contended that the petitioner is behind the bars since the date of his arrest and investigation being complete his corpus is no more required by the police for further investigation.
4. Contrarily, learned Deputy Prosecutor General Officer has vehemently opposed this petition. It is contended that the petitioner is duly nominated in the promptly lodged FIR with specific role of causing fire shot landing on the right leg of the deceased. However, learned Deputy Prosecutor General frankly conceded that the injury ascribed to the petitioner is not available as per post- mortem report of the deceased.
5. Arguments advanced from both sides have been heard. Record available on file perused.
6. There is no denial to this factum that the petitioner is named in the FIR with specific role, however, I am afraid this Court has to see from the facts and circumstances whether case against the petitioner to the extent of grant of relief prayed for is made out or not. As per contents of the crime report, the petitioner is ascribed the role of causing fire-arm injury on the right leg of the deceased, but no such injury is available on the post-mortem examination report of the deceased. The injury which is ascribed to the petitioner is an exit wound. Contradiction in the ocular as well as medical account itself makes the case against the petitioner one of further inquiry falling within the ambit of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Though the pistol has been recovered from the petitioner, but evidentiary value of the same would be determined by the learned trial Court during trial after recording of evidence as no crime empty was taken into possession by the Investigation Officer from the place of occurrence.
7. In sequel to above I am Inclined to hold that sufficient grounds exist to enlarge the petitioner on post-arrest bail. Resultantly, the instant petition is accepted as a consequence whereof the petitioner is admitted to bail after arrest 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 the learned trial Court.