Alongwith the present petition, i.e. Criminal Miscellaneous No.3598-B of 1995, this order shall also dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No.3599-B of 1995, filed on behalf of another accused in the same case. The petitioners in both the bail petitions are accused of offences under section 302/337-A(i)/337--F(i)/324/148/149, P.P.C read with section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, vide F.I.R.
No.207/93, dated 26-10-1993, registered at Police Station Garb Maharaja, District Jhang.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners, the State and the complainant were heard at length in respect of the contentions raised herein. The learned counsel for the State and the complainant opposed the present bail petitions on the ground that the delay in the conclusion of the trial has been occasioned by the delaying tactics of the accused/petitioners and 'that they are specifically named in the F.I.R. And specific roles have been attributed to them. The learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that as only two eye-witnesses remained to be examined, therefore, at this stage allowing bail to the petitioners/accused shall prejudice the trial of the case, and in the same breath, further opposed the present bail petition by stating that as the trial of the case has been stayed by the High Court, pursuant to the order passed by my learned brother Khalid Paul Khawaja, J., in a transfer application, which has been directed to be placed before this Bench, therefore, bail should not be allowed to the accused/petitioners, which contention is totally irrelevant to the instant case for bail.
3. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners argued for their bail primarily on the ground that this Court had allowed bail to their co-accused, vide order dated 10-7-1995, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.2046-B of 1995 on the ground that there was also a counter-case against the complainant party in respect of the same occurrence as is the subject-matter of the present A bail petition, and that the said order dated 10-7-1995 allowing bail to the co---accused of the petitioners was challenged before the Honourable Supreme Court, but failed to find any favour and that the said Criminal Petition No.301-L of 1995 was dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court with the observation that no ground for cancellation of bail has been made out, vide order dated 3-10-1995 and produced a certified copy thereof, which has been directed to be placed on the file..
4. Therefore, following the principle of consistency and further holding that pursuant to the same principle of law, whereby the co-accused of the petitioners have been allowed bail, the petitioners are also entitled to bail. For reference relevant portion of the said bail order is reproduced herein below:-- "Therefore, pursuant to the above discussion, it is hereby held that, under the circumstances highlighted, i.e. That there are two F.I.Rs. In respect of the occurrence in question and pursuant thereto two challans have been submitted to the learned trial Court, the case of the present petitioners is duly covered under the provisions of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. And that as such their case is one of further inquiry entitling them to bail. In this respect strength is drawn by placing reliance upon Manzoor and 4 others v. The State PLD 1972 SC 81 and Amir v. The State PLD 1972 SC 277, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has held that neither the law is to be stretched in favour of the prosecution nor the bail is to be denied as punishment, further holding that any doubt arising even at the bail stage should be resolved in favour of the accused. "
5. Consequently, the petitioners in both the bail petitions i.e. Criminal Miscellaneous No.3598-B of 1995 and Criminal Miscellaneous No.3599-B of 1995 are hereby admitted to bail in the, sum of Rs.50,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C./Duty Magistrate, Jhang.