S.M. Zubair J.- The petitioner, who is involved in a case under sections 307/353/332/148/149 P.P.C, arising out of FIR No. 127 dated 11.7.1982 registered at Police Station Sanglahill seeks to be released on bail.
2. The petitioner was allowed bail by the trial Court. Thereafter, he was arrested in another case, an intimation was sent to the trial court but the trial Court has cancelled his bail on account of his non-appearance.
3. The petitioner applied to the Sessions Court who also refused to grant him bail vide order dated 20.3.1989.
4. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is behind the bars but so far no progress has been shown in the trial and the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars by way of punishment.
5. Learned counsel for the State is not in a position to refute the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and admits that the petitioner was granted bail and his bail was cancelled, he is behind the bars and no witness has been examined so far.
6. In view of above mentioned circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to bail, hence I admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Sheikhupura.
7. Copy dasti on payment of usual charges. {{THIS PART IS EXTRA REVIEW LATER}}
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in spite of the fact that the petitioner is behind the bars since 29.4.1989, no progress has been made in the case, because the prosecution has failed to examine any witness and that no competent court is avail-able at Mianwali.
5. The learned counsel for the State assisted by the I.O. Has vehemently opposed the bail application, but he has to concede that no Judicial Magistrate is posted at Mianwali, who could take cognizance of the offence.
6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars by way of punishment, the injury ascribed to the petitioner is simple in nature. Learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on Fazal Msih vs. The State (N.L.R. 1984 U.C. 372) contended that dimension of the injury on the person of the complainant shows that there was no apparent intention of the petitioner to cause the death of the victim. In my opinion it is a case of further inquiry. The petitioner is accordingly admitted to bail in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- (thirty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C./Duty Magistrate, Mianwali.