The petitioners, namely Khalid ur Rehman and Aziz ur Rehman have sought post arrest bail in case, F.I.R. No.736, dated 30-11-2020, registered under sections 337-F(i), 337-D, 337-F(v), 337-A(ii), 452, 506(ii), 148, 149, 427 of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 ("PPC") at Police Station Tarnol, Islamabad.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the FIR was registered after a delay of four days. He relies on Dilawar vs. The State and another (2018 P Cr.LJ 1988) . The learned counsel states that the dispute between the petitioners and the complainant is a family dispute; that the complainant is a real brother of the petitioners and persons injured are both the brother and father of the petitioners; that the dispute arose when the complainant sought to evict the petitioners and their mother from their home as the father and the complainant seek to take the possession of the house back from the petitioners who reside in the house along with their mother; that it is mentioned in the FIR that one Mst. Naziran Bibi also beat up the complainant who is the real mother of the complainant; that initial medical report reflected minor injuries and section 337-D was added on 14.01.2021 forty nine (49) days after registration of the FIR and possibility of the complainant and injured persons having been injured in another incident cannot be ruled out, making this a case of further inquiry; that there is conflict between the account in the FIR and the medical report; that the investigation is complete and the petitioners are no longer needed for further investigation and no further recovery is to be effected; that the accused/petitioners are not convicts and have no criminal history; that even though some of the offences fall within the second proviso of section 497 Cr.P.C, it is settled law that it is not the seriousness of the charges leveled that forms the determining factor in consideration of bail petitions; that it was held in Abdullah and others vs. The State (2008 YLR 2717 ) that bail in relation to offences punishable with imprisonment for less than ten years are only to be denied when there is likelihood of abscondance of accused or there is an apprehension that the accused tamper with the prosecution evidence or there is danger of the offence being repeated if the accused is released on bail or if the accused is a previous convict; that in the present case none of the conditions are attracted and all charges, other than that of under section 337-D applied after delay of 49 days, prescribe a maximum sentence of less than ten years and in relation to section 337-D a case of further inquiry is made out and thus the petitioners should be enlarged on bail.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioners are nominated in the FIR and a specific role is attributed to them. That there is no delay in registration of FIR, which was registered after submission of medical report as is customary , while the application for filing of the FIR was submitted on 26.11.2020 as also noted in the FIR; that the medical report corroborates the account in the FIR; that there is no malafide in this case as according to the petitioners themselves, the complainant is their real brother and the person injured is the real father of the petitioners; that SSP conducted an inquiry and found the petitioners guilty; that the investigation is complete, challan has been submitted and the charge falls within the prohibitory clause; that 12-bore gun mentioned in the FIR was also recovered from the petitioners and in view of these facts and circums tances, the bail petition ought to be dismissed.
4. Learned State Counsel submits that the medical record corroborates the account in the FIR; that the gun recovered from the petitioners is mentioned in the recovery memo, which also corroborates the account in the FIR.
She opposed the bail petition.
5. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that the delay in the FIR and addition of section 337-D after 49 days of registration of the FIR reflects malafide of the State and has been added to improve the case of the complainant for purposes of the present bail petition.
6. It is not denied that the petitioners have no criminal record. The investigation is complete, no further recovery remains to be effected, and thus there is no possibility of them influencing investi gation if released on bail. It has also not been argued that the accused/petitioners are a flight risk.
It is also apparent that the incident that has led to the pressing of charges is a family feud involving siblings and their parents with the mother on one side and the father on the other .
7. It is a settled principle that an accused is to be deemed innocent until proven guilty . The right to liberty and dignity is also protected under Articles 9 and 14 of the Constitution as is the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A. In the event that after a fair trial the accused are found to be innocent, there is no mechanism to offer restitution for their loss of liberty pending their trial. It has therefore been held by the august Supreme Court that bail cannot be denied as a punishment pending trial in Manzoor and 4 others vs. The State (PLD 1972 SC 81) in the following terms: "It is important to remember that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. There is no legal or moral compulsion to keep people in jail merely on the allegation that they have committed offences punishable with death or transportation, unless reasonable ground s appear to exist to disclose their compli city. The ultimate conviction and incarceration of a guilty person can repair the wrong caused by a mistaken relief of interim bail granted to him, but no satisfactory reparation can be offered to an innocent man for his unjustified incarceration at any stage of the case albeit his acquittal in the long run."
8. On the basis of tentative assessment the learned counsel for the petitioner has made out a case for further inquiry . In view of the principles laid down by the august Supreme Court and the present facts and circumstances, this case does not attract any of considerations on the basis of which bail ought to be denied to the petitioners.
9. In these facts and circumstances, the instant petition is allowed and the petitione r are admitted to bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.20 0,000/- (Rupees Two Hundred Thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.