SYED M ANSOOR ALI SHAH, J.
Criminal M.A. No. 543-L/2021: This petition is barred by 145 days. For the reasons given in the application for condonation of delay and placing reliance on M uham m ad Arshad Nadeem[1] case, the delay in the filing of this petition is condoned. Application allowed.
Main Case
2. The Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order dated 17.6.2021, whereby he was refused post-arrest bail in case FIR No.322/2019, Police Station Sadar Muridke, District Sheikhupura, registered under sections 302, 109, 148, 149, 337A(i), 337F(i), 337L(2),. P.P.C.
3. Briefly, according to the FIR, the petitioner along with other co-accused entered the house of the sister of the complainant and assaulted her husband Tabarak Ali and their neighbour Ehsan. The allegation levelled against the Petitioner is that he broke the teeth of Ehsan by hitting him with an iron rod on his mouth. While the other co-accused made a fire-shot at Tabark Ali that entered him from the back and exited from the abdomen in the front. In the end Tabark Ali lost his life and Ehsan was left injured.
4. The Post-Mortem Report dated 03.06.2019 describes this injury caused by the Petitioner as Injury No.6 which is described as "not a deep wound but superficial in nature and two teeth of Ehsan were broken". The same Post-Mortem Report, under Part-IV-Abdomen, at serial No.3 describes the 'mouth to be healthy. The final opinion of the medical officer which constitutes the cause of death of Tabarak Ali states as follows: "cardiopulmonary arrest due to excessive internal bleeding due to rupture of spleen, liver and lung injury." which was not caused by the Petitioner.
5. Prima facie, the injury caused by the Petitioner compared to the firearm injury caused by the co- accused, does not appear to be fatal leading to the death of Tabarak Ali and the medial evidence to the extent of the alleged injury caused by the Petitioner appears to be contradictory. The question of common intention under section 34, P.P.C. can best be examined during the trial after recording of the evidence.
6. In this background, to the extent of the Petitioner there appears to be no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed the non-bailable offence, but there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt. We, therefore, admit the petitioner to bail, subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. This petition is converted into appeal and allowed accordingly.
7. Needless to mention that the observations made in this order are of tentative nature which shall not in any manner influence the trial court, and that this concession of bail may be cancelled, under section 497(5), Cr.P.C., if the petitioner misuses it in any manner, including causing delay in the expeditious conclusion of the trial.
[1]M uham m ad Arshad Nadeem v. State PLD 2021 SC 927