S.M. ZUBAIR, J.- The petitioner has applied for the grant of post-arrest bail in a case registered against him vide F.I.R.No. 282/90 dated 6.9.1990 under sections 307/353/186 P.P.C, read with section 13 of the Arms Ordinance XX of 1965 at Police Station Sanda, Lahore.
2. The allegation against the petitioner as disclosed in the F.I.R, is that when the police party wanted to arrest the petitioner in a case registered against him vide F.I.R.No.272/90, under sections 395/397 PPC read with section 17 of Ordinance VI of 1979 at Police Station Sanda Lahore, the petitioner opened fire on the police party with a mauser and the aforementioned case was registered against him.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends them the petitioner was kept in illegal confinement by the police for seven days and was subjected to severe torture as is apparent from the medicolegal report of the petitioner dated 16.9.1990, when he was examined on the application of his father. According to this report the petitioner suffered twelve injuries, out of which injury No.1 is grievous in nature which is on the right thigh. He further contends that according to the F.I.R, it is mentioned that at the lime of the arrest the petitioner was in injured condition but he was not got medically examined by the police as required by rule 26.6 of the Police Rules, 1934. The learned counsel submits that in fact the police in order to cover up its misdeed has cooked up this false case against the petitioner hence, the case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry. He has also submitted that in the main case i.e. F.I.R. No.272/90, the petitioner has been released on bail.
4. The learned counsel for the State assisted by the Police Officer has opposed this bail application on the ground that the petitioner is involved in a serious and heinous crime, hence he is not entitled to bail as he opened fire on the police party when they tried to apprehend him.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find great force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the injuries received by the petitioner have not been properly explained by the police, and the I.O. Has not fulfilled its duty as enjoined upon him under rule 26.6 of the Police Rules, 1934, which lends some support to the plea raised by the petitioner, that after giving beating to the petitioner, he was falsely involved in this case, in view of the medicolegal report referred above- In the presence of this evidence, the case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry, it would be determined after taking down some evidence, whether the plea taken by the petitioner is correct or not.
6. In view of the above discussion, the petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trail Court.