RAJA MUHAMMAD SABIR, J. - This is a petition for grant of post arrest bail by Amjad Mahmood petitioner one of the accused involved in a Case FIR No. 237, dated 31-8-1996 under Sections 324/452/34 P.P.C. Subsequently, Section 46( 'R.P.C, was also added by the I.O. Police Station Saddar, Jhelum.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the FIR three assailants have been mentioned without any description of anybody, who entered in the house of Haji Muhammad Sarwar complainant at midnight when his son and daughter-in-law (Usman Ghani and A/.v/.Shahnaz Begum) were sleeping in the compound of the house. They were alarmed with fire arms. One of them fired at complainant's lower part of leg whereas his second fire missed the target.
Subsequently, all the accused ran away from the place of occurrence. No motive whatsoever is alleged against anybody. According to the investigation, the fire of Amjad Mahmood hit at the left knee of the complainant.
3. During the investigation on 21-9-1996, Usman Ghani and Mst. Shahnaz Begum aforesaid stated before the police in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, that Safeer Ahmad, Thair Mahmood and Amjad Mahmood (petitioner) were assailants on the fateful night and they are related to the complainant party. Specifically it has also been alleged in the statement that Amjad Mahmood fired at the complainant which hit at his left knee. The other accused Safeer and Tahir Mahmood were not attributed any fire. Statements of Usman Ghani and Mst. Shahnaz Begum were also recorded on 31-8-1996 which are similar as that of the complainant made in the FIR.
4. Fate of case depends upon the statements of Usman Ghani and Mst. Shahnaz Begum which were recorded after 21 days of the occurrence wherein they have disclosed the participation of the accused in the occurrence on 21-9-1996 but they have not stated anything of this nature in their statements recorded on 31-8-1996. The silence of these two witnesses for such a long time makes this case of further inquiry. The co-accused of the petitioner have also been granted bail by me vide orders dated 18-11-1996 and 23-12-1996 on the same principle that veracity of the statements of these two witnesses is open to further inquiry.
5. According to the Investigating Officer, challan has been submitted in the Court on 13-10-1996.
The petitioner is in lock-up since 24-9-1996. The complainant has gone back to England. The trial of the case has not commenced so far. The accused cannot be kept in jail for indefinite period without trial. Since the complainant has also gone to England, the trial of the accused is likely to be delayed for a considerable long period.
6. Keeping in view the delay in trial and the allegation against the petitioner on the basis of the statements of Usman Ghani and first. Shahnaz Begum made after 21 days of the occurrence, I admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. In case the petitioner abuses the concession of bail the complainant can make application for cancellation of his bail. The petition is accordingly allowed.