Through the petition filed under Section 497, Cr.P.C., the petitioner namely Yaseen is seeking post-arrest bail in the case FIR No. 311 of 2019, dated 11.09.2019, registered at Police Station Nawan Shaher , District Khanewal, in respect of of fences under Sections 337- F(vi), 337-A(i) and 34, PPC.
2. The allegation as against the petitioner , as culled from the evidentiary material produced before the Court, is that the petitioner namely Yaseen gave a blow with a sola hitting the left wrist of the injured, namely Muhammad Rafique, the complainant of the case.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of this case with their able assistance.
4. It has been noticed by this Court that the injury attributed to the petitioner , suffered by the injured of the case, namely Muhammad Rafique, the complainant of the case on his left wrist was declared of the nature of "Jurh Ghayar -Jaifah Munaqqilah ", made punishable under 337-F(vi) and punishable for a term which may extend to seven years as tazir. A tentative perusal of the record shows that, prima facie, there is no sufficient material available on the record to believe that the petitioner has committed an offence, which falls under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the, Cr.P.C. The vicarious liability of the petitioner for the offences alleged in the FIR shall be better determined by the learned trial Court after recording of the evidence. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the complainant/Respondent No. 2 of the case have submitted that the contents of the FIR reveal that the petitioner had committed an offence made punishable under Section 324, PPC. Section 324 of the, PPC deals with an attempt to commit qatl-i-amd. An attempt as an indictable crime means an intentional act with a view to attain a definite end but which is not achieved because of circumstance independent of the will of the offender who makes the attempt. In the instant case, the intention of the petitioner to kill the injured Muhammad Rafique, the complainant of the case is not available, particularly when, after sustaining an injury , the injured Muhammad Rafique, was entirely at the mercy of the petitioner , but the petitioner , despite being armed did not cause any other injury . Applicability of Section 324 of the P.P.C. has to be adjudged in the background of number of the accused persons, the weapons carried by them and the opportunity' available to them to complete the intended offence Receipt of injury on the left wrist by the injured Muhammad Rafique, the complainant of the case, has indicated that accused had no intention to kill him; otherwise he would have not chosen the wrist of the injured to inflict an injury .
The applicability of Section 324 of the P.P.C. is yet to be determined during course of the trial and, at best, the case of the petitioner seems to be covered by the provisions of sections 337-F(vi) of the P.P.C, which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Cr.P.C. In the given circumstances, the case of petitioner falls within the ambit of cases where grant of bail is a rule. Reliance is placed on the case of Jan Muhammad versus Haji Noor Jamal (1998 SCMR 500 ) wherein it has been held as under: "In light of the provisions contained in Section 324, P.P.C. read with Section 337, P.P.C., we agree with the submissions made by the learned counse l for the petitioner . We agree with him that present case is not covered by the prohibition contained in sub-section (1) of Section 497, Cr .P.C."
Besides, no exceptional circumstances appear in this case to without bail to the petitioner . The petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest on 27.09.2019 and the investigation has been finalized, and the allegations against him are yet to be proved through evidence in the Court, as such, further detention of the petitioner in this case at this stage would not serve any fruitful purpose. Admittedly , the petitioner is a previous non-convict. The trial has not seen any fruitful progress as yet. It is settled that while dealing with the question of bail, Court should consider the minimum aspect of the sentence provide d for the alleged offence in the schedule. In this respect, I am supported with the case of "Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State " reported as PLD 1995 SC 34, wherein it has been mentioned that Section 497, Cr.P.C. divided non-bailable offences into two categor ies (1) offences punishable with death, imprisonment of life or imprisonme nt for ten years (2) offences punishable for imprisonment of less than ten years, the principle to be deduced from this provision of law is that non bailable offences falling in the second category (punishable with imprisonment for less than ten years) the grant of bail is a rule and refusal an exception.
So the bail will be declined only in extraordinary and exceptional cases, for example:--
(a) Whether there is likelihood of abscondence of the accused;
(b) Where there is apprehension of the accused tampering with the prosecution evidence;
(c) Where that is danger of the of fence being repeated if the accused is released on bail; and
(d) Where the accused is a previous convict.
This principle has also been reiterated in the case of "Zafar lqbal v. Muhammad Anwar and others " (2009 SCMR 1488 ), Riaz Jafar Natiq v. Muhammad Nadeem Dar and others (2011 SCMR 1708 ). Grant of bail is a right and refusal is an exception in such like cases as held by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "Imtiaz Ahmad and another vs. The State" (PLD 1997 SC Page 545) held as under: "Even in cases where a person is accused of non bailable offence and the case does not fall within the prohibitory clause, meaning thereby that the punishment prescribed for the offence is neither death nor imprisonment for life nor 10 years, the grant of bail in such cases is a rule and refusal an exception."
The prosecution has not produced any material to prove extraordinary G and exceptional circumstances to refuse bail to the petitioner .
5. For the foregoing reasons the petition in hand is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 500,000/- (rupees five hundred thousand only) with two sureties each, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
6. Needless to mention that any observations made in the above order are tentative in nature and shall not influence the trial Court. Additionally a direction is issued to the learned trial Court to conclude the trial of the petitioner expeditiously , preferably within a period of two months from the receipt of copy of this order . It is made clear that if the petitioner or any person acting on his behalf causes delay in the conclusion of the trial then the trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioner in accordance with law .