Petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 437/2017 dated 28.07.2017 under Sections 324, 34, 109, PPC registered at Police Station Hujra Shah Muqeem, Okara, wherein, precisely the allegation against him is that due to in-house differences, she pressed the necks of the children, as a result they became unconscious and further she sprinkled petrol and set the household articles at fire. .2. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the available record, it has been observed that:--
(i) Although the alleged occurrence took place on 27.07.2017 at 10/11.00 am, but the matter was reported to the police next day i,e, on 28.07.2017 at 08.45 p.m., thus, there is obvious delay of about thirty three hours;
(ii) It has been observed that in the FIR Muhammad Waqas and Muhammad Yasin have been cited as eye-witnesses, but from the tenor of their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. it appears that they reached at the site after seeing the flames, thus, it appears that they had not seen the first part of alleged incident wherein, purportedly the petitioner pressed the necks of the kids;
(iii) According to the FIR the children were moved to the Hospital same day, whereas, their medical certificates show that they were taken to hospital on 28.07.2017 at 11.00 a.m., i,e, after almost twenty four hours;
(iv) In addition to the above, the history of both the children narrated by their grand-mother as well as father has been written as, beating, which fact is against the specific stance of throttling as taken in the FIR and furthermore, apart from the fact that they were conscious and visibly were in normal condition, only minor abrasions were observed by the medical officer;
(v) As shall be seen from the contents of the FIR, there is specific allegation that household articles were set at fire by the petitioner, but no burnt or semi-burnt item has been collected by the Investigating Officer from the spot;
(vi) It is a fact borne out from the record that in-laws of the petitioner are already at daggers drawn and criminal proceedings against them are pending;
(vii) The petitioner is behind the bars without noticeable progress in the trial, whereas, the petitioner cannot be kept incarcerated for an indefinite period to wait for the conclusion of trial;
(viii) All the above facts when juxtaposed make the case against the petitioner one of further inquiry.
3. In view of above, this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs, 100,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.