' The petitioner is involved in a case F.I.R. No,695 of 1999 dated 1-5-1999 for offences under sections 337-F(v)/337-F(i)/34, P.I.C. Registered at Police Station Saddar, Depalpur, District Okara on the statement of Sajwara son of Nawab on 24-10-1999 alleging that on the said date he along with his daughters Rasheedan Bibi and Suba Bibi were working in his land at about 10-00 a.m. And that Ali Sher alias Sheri son of Nazir armed with Sota and Bashir son of Haitam the present petitioner also armed with Sota and Shaukat son of unknown armed with Sota came there. Ali Sher raised Lalkara that they would teach a lesson to Sajwara for non-vacating their land. Bashir and Shaukat came towards the complainant on that the daughters of the complainant came forward to rescue him.
On that Ali Sher gave Sota blow which hit on the left arm of Suba Bibi the daughter of the complainant. Bashir gave Sota blow which hit her head. Thereafter, Shaukat and Bashir gave Sota blows on various parts of her. Then Rasheedan the daughter of the complainant came forward and a blow hit on her left arm. Ali Sher and Shaukat gave her Sota blows on her head. On hue and cry of the complainant, Bashir Ahmad son of Manzoor and Jahangir son of Shabal, who were working nearby in the field came there and entreated the assailants and got daughters of the complainant rescued. The motive behind the incident as stated in the F.I.R. Was that dispute of land was going on between the complainant and the petitioner.
2. Earlier Shaukat co-accused has been granted bail on 17-5-1999 by the learned Illaqa Magistrate/Civil Judge, Depalpur. While, the petitioner was refused bail with the observation that a specific injury has been attributed to him which has been declared as Ghayr-Jaifah Hashimah.
Similarly, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Depalpur vide order dated 27-5-1999 also declined the bail with the observation that according to the allegation of the F.I.R. All the accused persons including the present petitioner, have committed criminal assault with premeditation due to which the two women have received injuries and left arm of both the women as per medico legal stands fractured and that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497', Cr.P.C., due to the application of section 324, P.P.C.
3. The bail is now pressed on the ground that on the same circumstances the co-accused Shaukat has been granted bail and the case of the petitioner is at par with him and it cannot be determined at this stage that who has inflicted the grievous injuries and that there is a delay of 7 days in lodging the F.I.R. Without explanation which shows that the F.I.R. Had been lodged after consultation and with a mala tide intention and that there is admittedly a civil litigation between the parties and that the present case has been got registered to pressurize the petitioner to withdraw the case against the complainant and also to hand over the possession of the disputed land to the complainant.
4. I have given due consideration to the valuable arguments on both sides.
5. The tentative appraisal of the material on record shows that there is delay of 7 days in lodging the F.I.R. Without any explanation.
6. In the case of Karim Haider and others v. The State 1986 SCM R 938 where there was a delay of 14 days without any explanation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan had allowed the bail in a murder case.
7. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that delay in lodging F.I.R. Alone is never considered a circumstance sufficient for grant of bail in a case involving capital punishment as was in the case of Haji Gulu Khan v. Gul Daraz Khan and another 1995 SCM R 1765. In the said case the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Saiduzzamam Siddiqui (now the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Pakistan) observed:--- ' The scope of the expression 'further enquiry' used in section 497, Cr.P.C. Have been subject of in- depth discussion in many cases but here I will refer only to the following observations in the case of Muhammad Sadiq v. Sadiq and others PLD 1985 SC 182: ' So far as the scope of the phrase 'further inquiry' is concerned its true meaning is explained as follows:--- "497. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable Offence.
(1)...............
(2) If it appears to such officer or Court at any stage of the investigation, inquiry or trial, as the case may be, that there are not reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence but that there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt, the accused shall, pending such inquiry, be released on bail, or, at the discretion of such officer or Court, on the execution by him of a bond without sureties for his appearance as hereinafter provided.
' This provision does not leave it to the discretion of the Court to withhold bail to a person accused of a non-bailable offence. It has to be allowed to him as of right under this provision if an important prior condition is fulfilled, namely, that the Officer In charge of police station or the Court taking cognizance of the matter comes to a definite conclusion on consideration of the entire material that 'there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed a non- bailable offence'. Without such finding by such officer or the Court the accused would not be released on ground of further inquiry under subsection (2). And similarly if such a finding is recorded that accused cannot be denied the right of bail granted to him by the same provision. In the present case neither the officer nor the Court concerned recorded the prerequisite finding. That being so that respondent could not be released on bail on ground of so-called 'further inquiry' under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C."
It is, therefore, quite clear that a case would only fall within the scope of further inquiry under section 497 (2), Cr.P.C. If the Court reaches the conclusion that on the material before it, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is guilty of a non-bailable offence or an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 10 years. In the absence of a finding to this effect, there will be no occasion for the Court to hold that the case is one of further inquiry. It may be mentioned here that in order to ascertain that no reasonable ground exists to believe that the accused is guilty of a non-bailable offence or offence punishable with death, life imprisonment or imprisonment for 10 years, the Court, if the case is still at the stage of investigation will make a tentative assessm ent of the allegations against the accused person in the light of the material so far collected by the Investigation Agency to connect him with the offence. In case the trial has commenced, the Court taking cognizance of the case may, in addition to the material collected by the police, also take into consideration the evidence produced before it. In the case before me, respondent No,1 is specifically charged with the firing from his arms along with the absconding accused on the deceased, both in the F.I.R. As well as in the statements of witnesses recorded under sections 161 and 164, Cr.P.C. The fact that in the F.I.R. And in the statement of prosecution witnesses there is only general allegation of firing by the respondent No,1 and the co- accused on the deceased and no specific injury on the deceased is attributed to respondent No,1, would not make the case against him, one of further inquiry as held by this Court in the case of Shahzaman and 3 others v. The State and another PLD 1994 SC 65 as follows:--- "Section 497 (2), Cr.P.C. Provides that if it appears to the Court at any stage that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that accused committed a non-bailable offence, but there are sufficient grounds for further enquiry into his guilt, such accused shall be released on bail. Now what will constitute as sufficient grounds for further enquiry, would depend upon peculiar facts of each case and no hard and fast rule can be laid down for that purpose. Evcry hypothetical question which can be imagined would not make it a case of further enquiry simply for the reason that it can be answered by the trial Court subsequently after evaluation of evidence. Broadly speaking the condition laid down in clause (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Is that there are sufficient grounds for further enquiry into his guilt which means that the question should be such which has nexus with the result of the case and may show or tend to show that accused is not guilty of the offence with which he is charged. For example if accused is charged for offence under section 302, P.P.C., but there are grounds for further enquiry which may show that he may not be convicted of charge under section 302, P.P.C. And acquitted or convicted for a lesser offence. In the instant case the fact that in F.I.R. It is not pin-pointed as to which appellant had what weapon and who caused the fatal injury, would not alter the charge on conviction if prosecution evidence is believed and may have some effect only on the quantum of sentence."
' The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed:--- "----No doubt, the benefit arising from the delay in lodging the FIR. Goes to the accused which could also he taken into consideration alongwith other circumstances in the case at the stage of deciding the bail application, but delay in lodging the F.I.R. Alone is never considered a circumstance sufficient for ,grant of bail in a case involving capital punishment."
8. In the case of Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State PLD 1995 SC 34 the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave the following guidelines in respect of the disposal of the bail application: "It in crystal clear that in bailable offence the grant of bail is a right and not favour, whereas in non- bailable offences the grant of hail is not a right but concession/grace. Section 497, Cr.P.C. Divided non-bailable offences into two categories i,e, (i) offences punishable with death, imprisonment of life or imprisonment for ten years; and (ii) offences punishable with imprisonment for less than ten years. The principle to the deduced from this provision of law is that in non-bailable offences falling in the second category (punishable with imprisonment for less than ten years) the grant of bail is a rule and refusal an exception. So the bail will be declined only in extraordinary and exceptional cases, for example--
(a) whether there is likelihood of ascendance of the accused;
(b) where there is apprehension of the accused tampering with the prosecution evidence;
(c) where there is danger of the offence being repeated if the accused is released on hail; and
(d) where the accused is a previous convict.
9. In the instant case there is allegation of causing injuries by all accused and at this stage the vicarious liability cannot be determined. As to who has inflicted the grievous injuries will be seen at the trial. The punishment for an offence under section 337-F(i), P.P.C. Is only one year and it is a boilable offence. The punishment of an offence under section 337-F (v), P.P.C. Is Daman and imprisonment of either description for five years and it is not hit by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Mere addition of section 324, P.P.C. By the police of an offence not made out from the contents of the F.1.R. Or the material on the record cannot bring a case within the mischief of the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The co-accused Shaukat who allegedly had caused Sota blow has already been released on bail by the trial Court on the same evidence, as such rule of consistency is also attracted in this case. Reliance can safely be placed on Ghulam Abbas v. The State 1996 SCM R 978.
10. For the above reasons I am convinced that the present case is that of further inquiry, the rule of consistency is attracted and even otherwise the case is not hit by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. As such, the petitioner is granted bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.