Through this Muhammad Iqbal petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No. 143/15, dated 19.02.2015 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Faisalabad in respect of offences under sections 302/148/149, PPC read with section 7 of Anti-Terrorism act, 1997.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of this case with their able assistance it has been noticed by this Court that this is bail after arrest and only tentative assessm ent is required at this stage. Although the petitioner is named in the FIR yet the fact remains that he was empty-handed at the spot and only the allegation of raising lalkara at the spot is attributed to him. According to the narration of the FIR after raising lalkara the petitioner went inside the hotel and thereafter the occurrence in this case has been taken place in his absence. Even during the course of investigation the petitioner has been found innocent by the police and nothing has been recovered from him. We are conscious that ipsi dixit of police is not binding upon the courts of law but the same can be taken into consideration at bail stage especially in the circumstances when the investigating officer comes to a definite conclusion that the petitioner is not involved in the occurrence. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the case reported as 2012 SCM R 1137. Today the complainant has entered appearance before this Court in person and he too has offered no objection if the petitioner is allowed bail by this Court. Although the offences with which the petitioner is charged are non-compoundable yet the law is quite settled on the point that the factum of compromise can be taken into consideration in non- compoundable cases. Reliance in this regard can be placed on 1999 P.Cr.L.J. 1107, 1999 P.Cr.L.J. 1278 and 2004 P.Cr.L.J. 490. The question whether the petitioner was actually present at the spot and he raised lalkara for which sense of fear or horror at the spot created or not would be resolved by the learned trial court at an appropriate stage after recording evidence in this case. Mere involvement of the petitioner in heinous offence does not prohibits the Court of law to extend its discretionary relief in his favour when otherwise a good case for post-arrest bail is made out from all the attending circumstances of the case. The petitioner is previous non-convict, not involved in any criminal case, he is behind the bars since his arrest, the investigation of this case is complete, thus, his continuous incarceration in jail would not serve any beneficial purpose at this stage. It may not be out of place to point out here that an ultimate conviction and incarceration of a guilty person can be repair by the wrong caused by a mistaken relief of bail granted to him but no satisfactory reprisal can be offered to an innocent person for his unjustified incarceration at any stage of case if he is acquitted in the long run.
3. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of sub-section (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.