Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in. a case registered vide F.I.R. No.131 of 2001, dated 13-5-2001, under sections 302/34, 324/337-A(ii), 429, 337-L(ii), 334, 148, 149, P.P.C., Police Station Kassowal, District Sahiwal.
2. As per F.I.R. Allegation against the petitioner is that he being armed with a pump action .12 bore alongwith others launched a criminal attack on the complainant party. As a result of which Muhammad Iqbal expired and Noor Mehnga the uncle of the complainant was also injured.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last six months; that even as per F.I.R., he is accused of ineffective firing with pump action .12 bore but the same was not recovered from him despite he being on physical remand with police for a considerable period; that no empties were recovered from the place of alleged occurrence; that in all the investigations it has been opined by the Investigating Officers that the petitioner was found present at the spot empty-handed; that the alleged injury attributed to the petitioner to Noor Mehnga the alleged injured P.W. Was shown to be a blunt weapon injury as is evident from his M.L.C. And it has been observed by the Medical Officer that the same falls under section 337-A(ii), P.P.C. This offence admittedly does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. That the enmity is admitted between the parties; that it is yet to be seen as to whether the petitioner shared the common intention with the other accused persons.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant as well as State vehemently opposed the bail petition on the grounds that the petitioner was duly nominated in the F.I.R.; that the facts narrated in the F. I. R. Attracted the offence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; that it would be too early to enlarge the petitioner on bail particularly when the challan had already been submitted to the learned trial Court.
5. I have given due consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The specific submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner could not be successfully refuted as is evident from the above. All the factors pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner taken together bring the case of the petitioner within the ambit of further enquiry.
7. Resultantly, the instant bail petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.