' SHAHID HAMEED DAR; J.--Muhammad Shahzad petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.188 of 2010 dated 4-5-2010 under section 322, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Sarai Mughal, District Kasur.
2. The prosecution case as unfurled in the F.I,R. Is that Muhammad Mudassar (deceased) son of the complainant went outside to fetch grass for animals; the complainant also followed him and there he saw Chiragh Din and Shahzad (petitioner) attaching hooks with the barbed wire stretched around their fields so as to electrify it; the complainant all at once heard shrieks and found his son clung against the barbed wire; his ill-fated son died at the Spot within no time; the accused ran away from the scene of electrocution of Muhammad Mudassar.
3 The complainant made supplementary statement before the Investigating Officer on 16-5-2010, whereby, he improved upon his previous version by contending that both the. Accused Chiragh Din and Shahzad (petitioner) were armed with firearms at the time of occurrence and they had forced his deceased son to catch the barbed fence due to which he was electrocuted.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely roped in this case due to malice and ulterior motives of the complainant and he is innocent; the complainant has himself made it a case of two versions by introducing a new story through his supplementary statement; the case of the petitioner calls for further probe into his guilt so he may be granted the relief prayed for.
5. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioner's pre-arrest bail had been dismissed vide order dated 18-6-2010, whereafter he absconded and was taken into custody on 28-5-2011; the petitioner has committed a non-bailable offence and his case does not call for further probe into his guilt.
6. Learned Deputy Prosecutor-General Punjab submits that challan against the accused was submitted under section 512, Cr.P.C. On 16-9-2010; two eye-witnesses Rozdar Khan and Muhammad Afzal stated before the Investigating Officer that the accused-petitioner and his co-accused fled the scene of occurrence on witnessing Muhammad Mudassar (deceased) hanging against the live barbed wire instead of disconnecting the supply of electricity. He, however, admits that the Investigation Officer had formulated 'a favourable' opinion qua the, petitioner in terms that he was not present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time.
7. After havitig heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it transpires that the petitioner is not the owner of the land which stood fenced by means of live barbed wire. Who applied hooks to the fence, to run electric current in it, is a circumstance which has not been ably investigated by the Investigating Officer nor any plausible evidence appears to have been collected by him in this respect during the course of investigation. The complainant made a mockery of his own version as contained in the F.I.R., by getting recorded his supplementary statement on 16-5-2010 to the effect that the accused-petitioner and his co-accused being armed with firearms had forced his son Mudassar (deceased) to catch hold of the live-wire. He produced ,two witnesses Muhammad Arif and Muhammad Akbar on 16-5-2010 to the said effect. In the F.I.R., it has been alleged by the complainant that both the mentioned accused, Shahzad (petitioner) and his grandfather Chiragh Din were fixing hooks against the iron fence but there is no evidence to believe the said allegation. It is a pity that young son of the complainant lost life in an unfortunate manner but no incriminating material is available on the record to believe that the petitioner had Jenced the A said field or ran electric current in it or he had contributed towards the eventuality in any manner. The complainant has himself made it a case of two versions, one contained in the.
F.I.R. And the other in his supplementary statement dated '16-5-2010. Which one of two stories is nearer to truth shall be seen by the learned trial court after recording the evidence of the parties during trial.
8. A few words about the alleged abscondence of the petitioner. The petitioner's pre-arrest bail application had been dismissed by this Court on 18-6-2010 and he was finally taken into custody by the police on 28-5-2011. Different persons have been differently constituted by ALLAH ALMIGHTY.
Sometimes a person, instead of facing the situation/crises in a manlike manner opts to go into hibernation believing, that his period of misery and trouble may go by as the time would pass along. The world is not empty of the gallant either who show courage, confidence and valor to confront a most turbulent and anarchic situation without having a second thought. It is merely the difference of chemistry which makes the human beings behave and react distinctively. There is, however, no denial to the fact that everyone fears the wrath of the police, though in variant degrees. If one despite being innocent takes a decision out of timidity or nervousness to escape to a safer haven, the other one, also placed in identical situation, despite having certain reservations, may decide to bear the brunt of the upheavals in a manly way. Nothing can be said about the chemistry and disposition of the petitioner at this stage. The factum of abscondence, may not be a deciding factor, while dealing with the bail plea of an accused. The attending circumstances of the case and a tentative study thereof would be relevant for decision of a bail application on the touchstone of further inquiry as contemplated under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The element of abscondence must give way to the bail plea of an accused whose case categorically constitutes need for further inquiry. The case of the petitioner falls in the said categoiy.
9. Resultantly, I accept this applica- tion and admit the petitioner to post:arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.