ALI BAIG, C.J. The petitioner/accused namely Hazrat Khan has filed the instant petition under section 497, Cr.P.C for grant of post arrest bail in criminal case bearing FIR No. 10/2024 for offences under sections 324, 34, P.P.C., 3/5 Explosive Substance Act No. 6 of 1908 and criminal case bearing FIR No. 13/2024 for offence under section 13 A.O 20 of 1965 registered at Police Station Singul District Ghizer.
2. Brief facts of the case as disclosed in the FIR are that the complainant namely Faisal Khan son of Adil Khan had submitted a written complaint before the SHO P.S Singul District Ghizer stating therein that he is of the opinion that the present petitioner/accused along with his co-accused have attempted to commit murder of complainant Faisal Khan son of Adil Shah by opening fires from outside of house of the complainant and one bullet of fire hit the complainant.
3. After receipt of the complaint the SHO concerned has registered the FIR bearing No. 10/2024 and started investigation of the case. The concerned SHO arrested the present petitioner/accused and during investigation the concerned SHO recovered crime weapon from the present petitioner/accused and also registered another criminal case bearing FIR No. 13/2024. After completion of formal investigation got committed the present petitioner/accused to judicial lock- up at Gahkuch Ghizer.
4. The present petitioner/accused had filed an application before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Ghizer for grant of post arrest bail. The learned District and Sessions Judge, Ghizer after hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties, has dismissed the bail petition filed by the present petitioner/accused, vide order dated 29-06-2024 passed in B.A No. 34/2024. Hence, the instant bail petition before this Court.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/accused contended that the petitioner/accused is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the instant case with mala fide intention by the police in collusion with .the complainant The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused further argued that the instant FIR against the petitioner is fake, false, self- made and fabricated. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused further submitted that there is 5 hours unexplained delay in lodging of FIR. The learned' counsel for the petitioner/accused further submitted that no recovery of crime weapon has been effected from the present petitioner/accused. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused further submitted that no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner/accused. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused further submitted that co-accused namely Shakil-ud-Din and Abdul Salam were arrested by the police in the instant case and later on during the investigation the police have discharged them under section 169, Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused further submitted that the accused/petitioner and his co-accused had opened fires as per FIR but it has not been mentioned that whose fire hit the victim. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused further submitted that the case of the present petitioner/accused is required further inquiry. The learned counsel for the petitioner accused further submitted that the petitioner/accused is 73 years old and he has not committed any offence. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused further submitted that the prosecution has failed to connect the, present petitioner/accused with the alleged offence and there is no any independent ocular evidence available on the record against the petitioner/accused and serious doubts exist in the present case, hence the case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of further inquiry. In support of his argument;, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgments of superior. Courts reported as 2012 SCMR 573 and 2020 SCMR 871.
6. On the other hand, the learned DAG and learned counsel for the complainant controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused by contending that the present accused/petitioner is directly nominated in the FIR with specific role. The learned DAG and learned counsel for the complainant further contended that the police have recovered crime weapon on the pointation of petitioner. The learned DAG and learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that offence under section 324, P.P.C. and 3/5 Explosive Substance Act, are not bailable and falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The learned DAG and learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that the present petitioner/accused has a criminal history and a habitual offender and is not entitled for any leniency. The learned DAG further submitted that site plan of the place of occurrence has been prepared by the police on the pointation of present accused/petitioner. The learned DAG and learned counsel for the complainant relied on judgments of superior Courts reported as 2012 PCr.LJ 918, 2021 PCr.LJ 759.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and have minutely gone through the record with their able assistance.
8. From perusal of contents of FIR it transpires that there is five hours delay in lodging FIR which has not been explained by the complainant. The complainant has stated in the FIR that he has old enmity with Abdul Razaq, Abdul Din, Jaffar Ullah, Nazir Hussain and present petitioner is their relative, therefore, the petitioner and his above named co-accused might have opened fires on him. The complainant has not seen the petitioner/accused at the place of occurrence rather he has expressed suspicion that the accused/petitioner and his above named co-accused have opened fires on him. Prima-facie case of the petitioner is one of the further inquiry. Moreover, as per CNIC date of birth of the petitioner is 1952 as such he is advanced age of 73 years old, as such the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail.
9. The learned counsel for the complainant and Dy.A.G stated during the arguments that the present petitioner is involved in other criminal cases therefore, he is a habitual offender. It is settled principle of law that mere involvement of an accused in other criminal cases without any conviction in any case could not be ground to withhold the concession of bail. References in this connection is made to the reported judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as 2020 SCMR 871 and 2022 SCMR 1467.
10. For what has been discussed above this petition is allowed. Consequently the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of rupees 500,000/- with two local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court shall ensure that sureties are local and man of means. File.