Through this petition: Muhammad Hanif, the petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 628/2020, dated 28.12.2020, offences under Sections 337-F(vi), 147, 149, PPC, registered with the Police Station Saddar Phoolnagar , District Kasur .
2. As per FIR got lodged by Ghulam Rabbani complainant, the allegation against the petitioner is that on 19.12.2020, the petitioner alongwith his co-accused assaulted upon the materna l uncle of the complainant and injured him. During the occurrence, the petitioner caused wooden rod blows on the left leg of injured Muhammad Ali, resulted into fracture of his left leg.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. Although the petitioner is nominated in the FIR with specific roles but the fact remains that there is unexplained delay of about nine days, in reporting the matter to the Police, for which the prosecution has not advanced any explanation in the narration of crime report, which is fatal to the prosecution's case.
5. It is noticed that the occurrence allegedly took place on 19.12.2020 but while providing history to the Medical Officer, the injured Muhammad Ali stated that on 18.12.2020 he was hit by a wooden rod. Moreover, the Medical Officer has mentioned the probable duration of injuries as 24-48 hours. In view of above, the MLC of Muhammad Ali injured negates the ocular account furnished by the complainant in the FIR, which established mala fide on the part of the complainant. It is well settled that while granting pre-arrest bail, Court could consider the merits of the case in addition to element of mala fides and ulterior motives. Wisdom is drawn from Muhammad Jahangir Khan and others v. The State and others (2020 SCMR 1270 ) and Khair Muhammad and another v . The State through I. G. Punjab and another ( 2021 SCMR 130 ).
6. The offence alleged against the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. In view of above, prima facie , the prosecution has no sufficient incriminating material to connect the petitioner with the commission of alleged offence and chances of his false implication with mala fide intention cannot be ruled out. The petitioner has already joined the investigation, therefore, sending the petitioner behind the bars would not serve any useful purpose.
7. Consequently , this petition is allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is confirmed subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,00D/-(rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. Needless to mention that the observat ions made hereinabove are only tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the extent of grant of instant bail.