ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J. - The petitioner, through this petition, seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 28, dated 13.01.2012, under Section 336 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station, Saddar Chichawatni, District Sahiwal.
2. Allegation as contained in the F.I.R, is that the petitioner alongwith his co-accused thrown acid on the son of the complainant due to. Which his eyes and face has been damaged and disfigured.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is an unexplained delay of 5 days in lodging the F.I.R.; that the petitioner is neither named in the F.I.R, nor any recovery has been effected from him; that the petitioner has been involved in this case on the basis of supplementary statement recorded on 04.03.2012 but no source to identify the petitioner has been disclosed; that no identification parade was held to identify the accused persons, hence the petitioner is entitled to the concession of post arrest bail.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the injured received as many as 7 injuries; that the petitioner was identified on the basis of mobile phone; that the petitioner was arrested in this case on 11.03.2012 and it is too early to grant him bail; that offence under which the petitioner has been involved involves life imprisonment which falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Relies on 2004 YLR 704 to contend that according to the story of prosecution offence under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 is attracted to the facts and circumstances of this case; that the petitioner has been found guilty vide case diary No. 6 dated 11.03.2012, hence the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Prima facie, the petitioner has committed heinous offence. Medico-legal report reveals that all the injuries caused on the person of injured are due to throwing of acid. The petitioner was involved in this case on the basis of supplementary statement and on the basis of mobile phone number.
The witnesses through their statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C, have fully implicated the petitioner in the alleged crime. The crime of throwing acid on the human body has arisen to an alarming level which need to be taken note of. In this view of the matter the petitioner has failed to make out a case for bail.
7. In view of what has been stated above, this petition is without merit and is dismissed. Bail after arrest refused.