ORDER ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J. - Through this petition under Section 497, Cr.P.C. Noor Ahmed alias Babu petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No. 213/12, dated 02.08.2012 registered at Police Station Ravi, District Okara in respect of an offences under Section 324, P.P.C, read with Section 34, P.P.C.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been roped in this case by the complainant with mala fide intention and ulterior motives after joining hands with the local police. There is unexplained delay of five days in registration of F.I.R, which has not been explained by the complainant which clearly shows that F.I.R, has been got registered after due deliberations and consultations. During die investigation of this case one co-accused Nazim has been declared by the investigating officer to be innocent, thus, the story narrated in the F.I.R, has become doubtful.
As a result of investigation it. Has also come on record that it was none else but the complainant had opened fire at petitioner's party. The fire attributed to the petitioner is on non-vital part of-the injured victim and the petitioner did not repeat fire, thus, applicability of Section 324, P.P.C, would be determined by the learned Trial Court after recording evidence in this case. The petitioner remained on physical remand but nothing was recovered from him. The petitioner is previous non- convict, never involved in such-like cases, he is behind the bars since 09.08.2012, investigation is complete and the person of the petitioner is no more required for the purpose of further investigation, therefore, his further incarceration would not serve any beneficial purpose. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon 2011 YLR 770.
3. On the other hand the learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant after going through the record submits that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R, and specific role of firing is attributed to him therein. The injury attributed to the petitioner is also borne out from the Medico-legal Certificate of the injured victim. The case with which the petitioner is charged falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Opinion of the police is not binding on the Courts of law. There is ample evidence in shape of statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C, got recorded by the prosecution witnesses during the investigation of this case. There is absolutely no mala fide on the part of the complainant to falsely involve the petitioner in this case. The petitioner is causing delay in conclusion of the trial. At the end the learned counsel for the complainant states that instead of deciding this bail petition a direction be issued to the learned Trial Court to conclude the trial expeditiously and the complainant would produce and conclude prosecution evidence within one month positively.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of this case with their able assistance, It has been noticed by this Court that although the petitioner is named in the P.I.R, yet it is an admitted fact that there is a delay of five days in registration of the F.I.R.
According to the allegations contained in the' P.I.R, the fire-arm injury attributed to the petitioner is cm the thigh of the injured victim and admittedly the petitioner has not repeated fire-shot. Thus, applicability of Section 324, P.P.C, would be seen and determined by the learned Trial Court at the time of trial after recoding evidence in this case. Although the petitioner had remained on physical remand yet nothing was recovered from him during the investigation of this case. A co- accused of the petitioner namely Nazim has already been declared innocent by the investigating officer during the investigation of this case. The petitioner is previously non-convict, investigation of this case qua the petitioner is complete, he is behind the bars since 09.08.2012, his person is not required for the purpose of further investigation, therefore, his continuous incarceration in jail would not serve any beneficial purpose at this stage.
6. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of Section 497. Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and. The petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.