ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.---Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No,1055/15 dated 23.09.2015 under sections 302, 324, 34, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Islampura, Lahore.
2. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and only tentative assessment is required at this stage. It has been noticed by this Court that although petitioner is named in FIR with the role of causing firearm injuries on left wrist of Muhammad Amin Khan deceased, yet the fact remains that no firearm injury was observed by the doctor on left wrist of deceased during postmortem examination and the injuries were observed around his left elbow, thus, prima facie the medical evidence to the extent of petitioner is in contradiction with the ocular account, the benefit of which can be extended to the petitioner even at bail stage. Reliance is placed upon "Pir Bux v. The State" (2012 SCM R 1955). During investigation, it has come on the surface of record that the petitioner was merely present at the spot at the time of occurrence; he was empty handed and he did not cause any injury to the deceased, so taking into consideration the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, the instant case has become a case of two versions i,e, one put forward by the complainant in FIR and the other came on record during investigation and the question as to which version is correct shall be determined by learned trial court after recording evidence. Reliance is placed upon "Ehsan Ullah v. The State" (2012 SCM R 1137), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed as under:-- "This shows that in the present case the prosecution itself has two versions vis-a-vis the petitioner, first of the complainant party according to which the petitioner was present at the spot and had resorted to, firing and second of the investigating agency according to which the petitioner was not present at the spot and he was abetting his co-accused from behind the scene. All these considerations surely render the case against the petitioner one of further inquiry into his guilt."
Reliance can also be placed upon pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled "Zaigham Ashraf v. State etc." (2016 SCM R 18) wherein the Apex Court has been pleased to observe as under:--- "Keeping in view the two conflicting versions; one given by the complainant in the FIR and the other by the Investigating Agency based on documentary evidence with regard to the plea of alibi, the case of the present petitioner has become certainly one of further inquiry, falling within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C., where grant of bail becomes the right of accused and it is not a grace or concession, to be given by the Court. In the absence of any exceptional ground or reason, denial to bail in such a case would amount to exercise a discretion in a manner, not warranted by law and principle of justice."
Admittedly the petitioner is previous non-convict; he is behind the bars since 31.03.2017, more than seven and half months have lapsed but his trial has not seen any fruitful progress as yet.
Investigation of the case to the extent of the petitioner is complete and he is no more required for further investigation. Mere heinousness of offence or absconsion of accused are no grounds to refuse bail if otherwise the accused becomes entitled to the concession of bail. It is also settled law that benefit of doubt can be given to the accused even at bail stage, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars at this stage.
3. For what has been discussed above, taking guidance from the above mentioned case-law, 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 is granted bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,200,000/- (Rupees two 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 or this bail petition only.