' Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No,101 of 2002 dated 28-3-2002 under sections 324/148/ 149/337-F(iii)/337-C(i), P.P.C. At Police Station, City. Arifwala District Pakpattan Sharif.
2. As per F.I.R., the petitioner is an accused of launching a criminal assault on the complainant party as a result of which Muhammad Tariq brother of the complainant was injured.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the petitioner was arrested on 21-4- 2002 and he was granted bail after arrest on 8-5-2002 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, however, the same was cancelled by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide his order dated 17-6-2002 and since then he is behind the bars; that there is no progress at all in the trial of the case despite submission of the challan; that petitioner is alleged to have fired at the right hip of the injured with a .30-Bore Pistol but the same was not recovered at all despite his being on physical remand with the police for a considerable period; that the injured Tariq had also lodged a criminal case vide F.I.R. No,474 of 2002 at Police Station Saddar, Arifwala under section 302, P.P.C. And also nominated the other accused persons named in this very F.I.R. Who had been declared innocent later on and brother of this very injured was found to be guilty of the murder and he was challaned accordingly; that as per finding of the Investigating Officer, petitioner was present at the place of occurrence but empty-handed and the fire-arm injury was caused by one Latif Dogar who had also been granted bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate; that as per F.I.R., role of the co-accused Allah Ditta and the petitioner is the same and the said accused had already been enlarged on bail by the learned Magistrate Section 30, Arifwala vide his order dated 29-10-2002, therefore, rule of consistency also supports the case of the petitioner; that there is no allegation of repetition of the blow against the petitioner; that there is no previous history of involvement of the petitioner in such-like cases and he is a previous non-convict.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant opposed this petition on the ground that the accused was duly nominated in the F.I.R.
With a specific role; that the alleged offences do fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. But it is conceded that sections 337-F(iii) and 337-(G), P.P.C. Do not fall within the prohibitory clause of the same section.
5. The submissions made at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner bring the case of the petitioner within the ambit of further inquiry, therefore, this petition is allowed by admitting the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (two Lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate.