' Through this petition, the petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,116 of 2001 dated 16-3- 2001, under sections 302/ 324/148/149/109, P.P.C., registered with Police Station Manga Mandi District, Lahore.
2. Briefly stated story of the prosecution as narrated in the F.I.R. Is that on 16-3-2001 at about 5.30 p.m. The complainant alongwith his brother Haji Maqbool Ahmed, Riaz Ahmed, Jamil Ahmed and Asghar Ali son of Haji Muhammad Ali was coming from Village Bath on a car and when they reached near Khu Teheemanwali they were waylaid by Nazir Ahmed armed with pistol, Rashid, armed with pistol, Murtaza, armed with pistol, sons of Siraj Din, Ghulam Rasool also armed with pistol and one Monawar armed with pistol, who were riding on a Tractor. The accused persons fired at them. Haji Maqbool Ahmed on receiving injuries by the fire-arm weapons died at the spot.
During the said occurrence Sarfraz Ahmed and Jamil Ahmed were also injured alongwith the complainant. It is also alleged in the F.I.R. That the occurrence took place on the abetment of petitioner, Siraj Din. Subsequently the above said case was registered.
3. Petitioner moved his bail after arrest before the learned Sessions Judge, Lahore, which came up for hearing before a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore who, dismissed the same on 23-5- 2001. Hence the instant bail application, seeking the same relief from this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the complainant party being aggressor, wilfully and with mala fide intention concealed the factum of fire-arm injuries on the person of Nazir Ahmed, accused, which casts serious doubt into the truthfulness of the prosecution story. He further contends that the medical evidence according to which the deceased received injuries on his face with blunt weapon belies the prosecution version and the post-mortem report on the other hand also supports the cross-version put forth by Nazir Ahmed, accused. He further contends that the witnesses of conspiracy although closely related to the deceased are not mentioned in the F.I.R., therefore, it is unsafe to rely on the testimony of those witnesses. He further contends that the absence of the names of the witnesses of the conspiracy in the F.I.R. Clearly shows that they have been subsequently made up to falsely rope in the petitioner in the said case. He further contends that the petitioner is an old and infirm person of about 70 years of age and is a patient of diabates.
Hence his case falls under the proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Lastly he contends that the petitioner has made out a good case for the grant of bail, therefore, he may be admitted to bail.
5. On the other hand learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant contends that the petitioner is not entitled to bail and the bail application merits dismissal. He further contends the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R., specific allegations have been levelled against him. Hence he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
6. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for both sides and perused the record. Only allegations of abetment have been levelled against the petitioner. Admittedly he was not present at the spot nor he caused any injury to the deceased or the injured P.Ws. Moreover, non-presence of the petitioner at the place of occurrence shows that he was not interested in the commission of crime in question. It has been found by the doctor that two fire-arm injuries have been caused on the person of Nazir Ahmed, accused, which have been suppressed by the complainant side while lodging the F.I.R. Though in the supplementary statement these injuries have been explained on the same day by the complainant, this fact is sufficient to show that the involvement of the petitioner can be due to his relationship with the accused. It will be determined whether the petitioner participated in the occurrence and had the motive as has been alleged by two persons, namely Tariq and Aslam can be seen after recording of material evidence in the cas at the time of trial. At this stage only tentative assessm ent will be made because deeper appreciation of evidence will be at the time of trial. Prima facie petitioner's case falls within the ambit of further enquiry. He is entitled to the grant of bail. Accordingly he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the, sum of Rs,100,000 with two sureties each in like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.