Crl. Misc. 1/1999 ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.~ Dispensation sought for is allowed. Disposed of.
Crl. Misc. U56-B/1999 Muhammad Qasim petitioner is ain accused person in case FIR No. 204 registered at Police Station Ahmadpur Lamma, District Rahim Yar Khan on 4.10.1999 for offences under Sections 458/380/41 l/337-A(iii), P.P.C. The allegation against the petitioner and his co-accused is that during a night about 22 days prior to the registration of the FIR they had committed a theft and had soon after caused injuries to Bashir Ahmed complainant. The petitioner was arrested in connection with the above-mentioned case on 13.11.1999 and subsequently his successive applications for post-arrest bail were dismissed by the learned Magistrate 1st Class, Sadiq Abad and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sadiq, Abad vide orders dated 19.11.1999 and 10.12.1999 respectively. Hence, the present petition before this Court.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the. Record it has been noticed that the FIR in this Case had been lodged with a delay of 22 days. It was admittedly a case of a night occurrence and the petitioner had admittedly not been identified during the initial stages of this case. It is still not clear as to on what basis or evidence the petitioner has been implicated in this case. A vague and generalized statement by the complainant in the FIR that the petitioner had been implicated in this case on the basis of confirmation regarding his. Involvement by the brotherhood and on the basis of Oath prima facie does not meet the -requirements of the law regarding identification of an accused person. It is not disputed that on test identification parade has so far been conducted in this case so as to positively implicate the petitioner. Even otherwise no. Specific injury to the complainant had been attributed to the petitioner. A recovery ,of an ordinary stick from the petitioner during the investigation prima facie does not connect him with the offences alleged against him. .The challan in this case has already been submitted after completion of investigation and, thus, physical custody of the petitioner in jail is not likely to serve any beneficial purpose at this stage. It is trite law that the concession of bail ought not to be withheld by way of premature punishment.
3. For what has been observed above, the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail, in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.