Bilal Anwar , petitioner , through the instant petition, seeks ' pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 489 dated 14.10.2019 offences under Sections 337-F (V), 337-L(2), 147, 149, PPC registered at Police Station Saddar District Sargodha.
2. As per report furnished by the police, the complainant has duly been served with the notice of this case but no one is present on his behalf despite repeated calla. Even otherwise, it is a State case and the learned Deputy Prosecutor General for the State is ready to argue the same, therefore, I proceed to decide the instant petition after hearing arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner , learned Deputy Prosec utor General for the State and perusal of the record.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. As per brief allegations leveled in the FIR, on 30.09.2019 at 5:50 P.M., the petitioner and his co-accused, while armed with different weapons, launched an attack on the complainant party . Malik Khalid Farooq, co-accused raised a `Lalkara and inflicted 'sota' blow which landed on the right side of the head of Muhammad Arshad All (complainant). Thereafter , Bilal Anwar , petitioner inflicted a 'sota' blow which landed on the finger of left hand of Mohib Ali (PW). Sadheer , co-accused then inflicted a `sota' blow which landed on the right shoulder of Mohib Ali (PW). 'Abdul Rehman, co-accused then inflicted a 'sots' blow which landed near the left armpit of Mohib Ali (PW).
Thereafter , all the accused persons gave beating to Mohib Ali (PW) and caused injuries on the different parts of his body .
5. As per medico-legal report of Mohib Ali (PW), there were two injuries on his body . Injury No. 1 on the left little finger was attributed to the petitioner which was declared by the concerned Medical Officer to be punishable under Section 337F(v), PPC, however , the Medical Officer, first kept his opinion pending regarding the possibility of fabrication of injuries and after obtaining X-Ray report, he categorically mentioned in the medico-legal report of Mohib Ali (PW) that possibility of fabrication of the injury on the little finger of Mohib Ali (PW) i.e. injury No 1 attributed to the petitioner cannot be ruled out and he requested the investigating officer to investigate the matter in this respect. The investigating officer vide Zimni No. 12 dated 07.12.2019; has concluded that the petitioner reached at the spot after the occurrence and he was empty handed at the time of occurrence. It is further concluded by the investigating officer that the petitioner tried to pacify the matter and during the said process he only grappled with the complainant party . The above mentioned findings of the investigating officer are in conflict with the story narrated by the complainant in the FIR because as per contents of the FIR the petitioner was armed with 'sota' at the time of occurrence and he inflicted the injury on the little finger of Mohib Ali (PW) with the help of said `sots' but according to the above mentioned police investigation, the petitioner was empty handed at the time of occurrence. According to the police investigation the petitioner was empty handed at the time of occurrence, therefore, it is obvious that nothing is to be recovered from his possession by the police and as such no useful purpose shall be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars and as such a case for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out in favour of the petitioner . Reference in this context may be made to the case of "Khalid Mehmood and others vs. The State and others" (2011 SCMR 1719 ).
6. Although, it is argued by learned Deputy Prosecutor General that bloodstained `sota' is still to be recovered from the possession of the petitioner but I have noted that the occurrence in this case took place on 30.09.2019 and a period of two months and nineteen days has already elapsed from the date of occurrence, therefore, blood, if any, on the 'sots' expected to be recovered from the possession of the petitioner must have disintegrated in the meanwhile, therefore, possible recovery of 'sofa' from the possession of the petitioner , at this stage, would not serve any useful purpose for the case, of the prosecution and as such a case for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out in favour of the petitioner as obser ved by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "Malik Muhammad Aslam vs. The State & others" (2014 SCMR 1349 ).
7. Possibility of mala fide involvement of the petitioner in this case by the complainant, by using the wider net, cannot be ruled out at this stage.
8. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner by this Court is confirmed subject to his furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court,