ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.---Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No.20/2017 dated 20.01.2017 under sections 324, 334, 459, 337-F(v), 337- F(iv), 337-F(iii), 337-F(i), 109, 148, 149, P.P.C., Police Station Miana Gondal, District Mandi Baha-ud-Din.
2. I have heard the learned counsellor the petitioner and learned Deputy Prosecutor-General and have gone through the record of this case with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and only tentative assessm ent is permissible at this stage. It has been noticed that although petitioner is named in FIR yet the fact remains that there is an unexplained delay of one day in registration of the same, which prima facie shows that the FIR has been got registered with due deliberation and consultation. In FIR, the petitioner has been assigned the role of causing firearm injury on right leg of Sarfraz Ahmad injured and on the same leg, a firearm injury has also been attributed to co- accused Tanveer Aslam, but according to Medico-legal Certificate of Sarfraz Ahmad injured, there is only one firearm injury on right leg of the said injured. This conflict in the medical evidence and ocular account makes the case of present petitioner one of further inquiry. The offence with which the petitioner is charged is triable by Magistrate Section-30 who can award punishment upto seven years only and whether it is a fit case to be sent to the Court of Session under section 347, Cr.P.C. or not shall be determined by learned trial court after recording evidence. Even otherwise, it is settled law that maximum punishment is not to be considered while deciding the bail application. Admittedly the petitioner is previous non-convict. The investigation of the case is complete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation. He was arrested in connection with this case on 08.02.2017 and more than one year has lapsed, but his trial has not seen any fruitful progress as yet. Nobody can be kept in jail for indefinite period as speedy trial is right of every accused, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars. Mere heinousness of offence is no ground to refuse the concession of bail to an accused, who otherwise, becomes entitled for concession of bail on the merits of the case.
3. 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 are granted 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.
4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only.