ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.---Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.490/2012 dated 20-10-2012 under sections 324, 337A(i), 337F(i), 337L(2), 109, 148, 149 P.P.C., Police Station City Chunnian, District Kasur.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent; he has been falsely involved in this case by the complainant by widening the net; during investigation it has come on record that the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence; co-accused of the petitioner, namely Zeeshan has been declared innocent by the investigating officer so the story narrated in the F.I.R. has become doubtful co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Zia and Maqsood have already been allowed bail on the basis of compromise effected with the complainant; even otherwise the injury attributed to the present petitioner falls under section 337A(i) P.P.C. which is bailable; the attraction of section 324 P.P.C. is to be determined by the learned trial court after recording evidence; nothing was recovered from the present petitioner during investigation; he is previous non-convict; investigation of the case is complete and he is no more required for further investigation; his further incarceration in jail would not serve any useful purpose. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon PLD 2009 SC 385 and 2010 YLR 734.
3. On the .other hand learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, after going through the record, has vehemently opposed this bail petition on the grounds that there is no malice of the complainant to falsely implicate the present petitioner in this case; the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. with specific role of causing firearm injury on the body of the injured victim and the role attributed to him is borne out from the MLC of the injured victim; during investigation he has been found involved by the investigating officer and the case with which the petitioner is charged falls under the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the complainant contends that there are two witnesses, namely, Adnan and Imtiaz; statements of both the P. Ws. are available on record who fully involve the present petitioner in this case; the petitioner is a hardened, dangerous and desperate criminal against whom two other cases of heinous nature stand registered; the injured victim is still bed ridden; the charge in the instant case has been framed and if at this stage bail is granted to the petitioner the prosecution case would be prejudiced; in the end learned counsel for the complainant contends that instead of granting bail to the petitioner direction be given to the learned trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously. Learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon 2000 PCr.LJ 793 and 2004 PCr.LJ 923L
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Deputy District Public. Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the record of this case. It has been noticed by this Court that although the petitioner is named in the F.I.R but admittedly during investigation he was found not present at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence; he is liable only to the extent of abetment which falls under section 109 P.P.C.; one of the co-accused namely, Zeeshan has been found innocent by the investigating officer and two co-accused, namely, Zia and Maqsood have been allowed bail on the basis of compromise effected with the complainant; even otherwise, the injury attributed to the petitioner falls under section 337A(i) P.P.C which carries punishment of two years and is bailable; the question of attraction of section. 324 P.P.C. is to be determined by the learned trial court after recording evidence; he is previous non- convict; investigation of the case is complete and he is no more required for further, investigation; his further incarceration in jail would not serve any useful purpose; mere registration of case without conviction is no ground to refuse bail and similarly the commencement of trial is also no ground to refuse bail if otherwise the accused becomes entitled to the concession of bail.
5. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is granted bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.100,000 (Rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
6. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only. However, the learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial of this case expeditiously.