Through this petition under Section 498 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.153/15 dated 23.04.205, under sections 337A(i), 337F(i), 337F(v), 337L(2), 148, 149 PPC, Police Station Chak Bedi, District Pakpattan.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. This is bail before arrest and only tentative assessment is permissible at this stage, therefore, without going deeper into the merits of the case it has been noticed that although the petitioner is named in FIR, yet the fact remains that there is a delay of four days in registration of FIR, which has not been explained by the complainant, which prima facie shows that the FIR has been got registered after due deliberation and consultation. Furthermore, after the registration of instant FIR cross-version was also got recorded by the petitioner side which still holds field, through which medico legal certificates of the injured including present petitioner, Ghulam Murtaza son of Bashir Ahmad and Ata Muhammad son of Kaleem Ullah have been brought on record, which prima facie shows that the complainant has suppressed the part played by his side for causing injuries to the petitioner party during the occurrence, so the story narrated by the complainant in the FIR has become doubtful. It has become a case of two versions one put forward by the complainant of the FIR and the other in the shape of cross-version recorded by the petitioner side and which version is correct is to be determined by the learned trial court after recording evidence. It is also pertinent to mention here that Ghulam Murtaza accused of cross-version case, who has also been attributed injury falling under section 337F(v) PPC, has been allowed pre-arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pakpattan, so under the law the present petitioner also deserves same treatment.
Admittedly the petitioner is previous non-convict. Neither he is hardened, dangerous, desperate criminal nor has committed the alleged offence on the pretext of honour, therefore, section 337N(2)
PPC also comes to his rescue. The person of the petitioner cannot be handed over to police only for the purpose of effecting recovery, which otherwise has lost relevancy with the passage of time as occurrence in this case took place on 19.04.2015. In such situation, recovery of weapon of offence i.e. "sota" after the elapse of more than six months is of little help to the prosecution. In this regard, reliance can be placed on 2014 SCM R 1349. The petitioner has already joined the investigation which is complete, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars so as to enable him to come out of jail on post arrest bail after few days.
3. For what has been discussed above, false implication of the petitioner by the complainant cannot be ruled out of consideration. Resultantly, the ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide this Court's order dated 13.10.2015 is hereby confirmed subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court/Area Magistrate.
4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only.