' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.--Ehsan alias Sani (petitioner) seeks bailafter-arrest in case F.I.R. No.73 of 2013, dated 23-3-2013, registered for offences under sections 355, 452, 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), 337-F(iii), 337-F(v), 337-L(2), 148, 149, P.P.C., at Police Station Kassokey (Hafizabad).
2. Precisely, the prosecution case as narrated by Qasim Ali (complainant) is that he along with his family members, brother Muhammad Ameen, cousin Azmat Ali and three others was present at his house on 22-3-2013; It was at about 5:00 p.m. When ten (10) accused, including the petitioner, all armed with iron rods and hatchets trespassed onto his house by scaling over the outer walls and started thrashing his brother, Muhammad Amin. He and his family members attempted to rescue him, who ran out of the house to save himself; accused chased and took over him in a wheat crop field where they gave him merciless beating and also rendered him completely naked.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is delay of one day in lodgment of F.I.R., which has not been explained by the complainant in any manner; none of the offences falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.; a danda has been planted upon the petitioner by the police on 31-3-2013 despite the fact that, none of the accused, as per allegations, was armed with any danda; lastly submits that allegation against the petitioner is non-specific and of general nature, hence, it cannot be said with certainty at this stage as to which injury had been caused by the petitioner.
4. On the other hand, learned Addl: Prosecutor-General Punjab assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposes with the contention that the petitioner joined by his co-accused mercilessly beat Muhammad Ameen injured and inflicted 18 injuries on various parts of his body; the injured joined investigation on 2-4-2013 and fully corroborated the story of F.I.R. In his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. By contending that a blow given by the petitioner caused fracture of his hand; the petitioner and his co-accused have committed a heinous offence, therefore, they may not be granted the relief prayed for.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that the injured, Muhammad Amin joined investigation in this case belatedly i.e. On 2-4-2013 and offered no explanation as to why he kept quiet for such a long period of time. His statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Is inconsistent with the story of F.I.R. Inasmuch as, he does not contend to have been beaten by the accused inside the house of his brother, Qasim Ali (complainant), as regards the allegation by the latter that it was so done by the accused inside his house. None from the house of Sultan son of Khan Muhammad, whose name figures in the F.I.R. Joined investigation to state that the accused-petitioner and his co-accused firstly forced their way into his house before getting into the house of the complainant. The allegation against the petitioner is of collective and general nature and it cannot be seen from the contents of the F.I.R. As to which injury on the person of the injured had been inflicted by whom. Though, the injured P.W. Has burdened the petitioner with a specific injury at the fingers of his left hand, yet, the story of F.I.R. Is silent about this particular fact.
The petitioner allegedly got recovered a danda on 31-3-2013, which fact does not corroborate the F.I.R. Or the statement of the injured P.W., who has categorically alleged that the accused-petitioner was armed with an iron rod at the time of occurrence. None of the offences, the petitioner is confronted with, falls within the mischief of prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Grant of bail in such like offences, as the petitioner is faced against, is a rule and rejection thereof an exception.
The petitioner is behind the bars since 27-3-2013 and he is no more required for the purpose of recovery or discovery of any order fact.
6. Therefore, the instant petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest-bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.