' ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.--- Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. Faisal alias Mithu petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No,1003/14, dated 14.12.2014 registered at Police Station Sadar, Sheikhupura in respect of offences under sections 302/ 324/337- F(iii)/148/149 , P. P. C .
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of this case it has been noticed by this Court that this is bail after arrest and only tentative assessment is required at this stage. Although the petitioner is named in the FIR and role of causing fire-arm injury to Irfan, injured victim on his left thigh yet the fact remains he has not caused any injury to the Ameer Ali deceased so in this eventuality the question of sharing common intention with his co-accused would be determined by the learned trial Court at the time of trial. The injury attributed to the present petitioner is on left thigh and the same falls within the ambit of section 337-F(iii), P.P.C.
Which offence carries maximum punishment of three years and does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner has allegedly caused only one fire-shot to the injured and admittedly he has not repeated the fire so the question whether provisions of section 324, P.P.C. To the extent of the petitioner are attracted in this case or not would be determined by the learned trial Court. During investigation of this case a pistol has allegedly been recovered from the petitioner but admittedly there in no report of Forensic Science Laboratory regarding matching of crime-empties, if any with the recovered gun so in the backdrop of such a situation the evidentiary value and worth of recovery would be seen during trial after appraisal of evidence to be led by the prosecution witnesses. The petitioner is previous non-convict, never involved in any criminal case, he is behind the bars since his arrest, i,e, 1.1.2015, investigation qua him is complete, mere heinousness of offence is no ground to withhold discretion of post-arrest bail in favor of an accused, no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars, thus, his further incarceration would not serve any beneficial purpose at this stage. Rest of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant tantamount to touching the merits of the case which cannot be appreciated at this pre-mature stage of post-arrest bail.
3. Apart from what has been discussed above it goes without saying here that an ultimate conviction and incarceration of a guilty person can be repaired by the wrong caused by a mistaken relief of 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.
4. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt covered by 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 two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.