MUHAMMAD AHMAD vs THE STATE

ORDER

' Through the instant petition the petitioner has sought his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,461 dated 2-11-2003 registered under section 337-A(i)/337F(ii)/337-D/452/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Farid Town, Sahiwal.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and due to long standing enmity between the parties the petitioner being head of the family has been involved in this case, with ulterior motive. Further submits that the case of the petitioner is at par with his co-accused who has already been released on bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge; that there is delay of three days in lodging the F.I.R. Which has not been explained by the prosecution; that the whole story of the prosecution is doubtful and possibility of false involvement cannot, be ruled out in this case, Further submits that offence under section 337-D, P.P.C. Is not attracted in this ,case and the remaining offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. That petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and there is no progress towards the conclusion of trial.

3. Conversely learned counsel for the State has strongly opposed the grant of bail.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. Perusal of the F.I.R. Shows that story narrated by the prosecution was not free from doubt. According to prosecution story the injured complainant who was a Rickshaw Driver, after fetching the children of his cousin from school, dropped them in their house and himself went inside the kitchen to drink water where he was allegedly attacked by petitioner and another. It does not appeal to reason that someone would select such a venue to attack his opponent. It seems that during some incident the complainant was injured at the hands of some other assailants and therefore, the story had been concocted after due deliberation, perhaps that was the reason that F.I.R. Was lodged after an inordinate delay of three days of the occurrence which makes the case of the prosecution not free from doubt. Perusal of the M.L.C. Shows that section 337-D, P.P.C. Was not attracted in this case.

Admittedly the injury caused at the back of the chest of the injured witness which passed through the muscles and flesh and made its exit but it did not extend to body cavity and had not caused any damage to any vital organ of the body. If the injury does not extend to that part of the body then the same cannot be treated as Jaifah. Therefore, the offence with which the petitioner is charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. As far as the finding of the Investigating Officer are concerned that are not binding on the Court. The function of the Investigating Officer is to collect the evidence and place it before the Court. Therefore, the findings of the Investigating Officer are of no consequence. Co-accused of the petitioner has already been released on bail who was also armed with dagger and caused injury on the person of the complainant. Recovery of Chhuri at the pointation of the petitioner is not of any help to the prosecution as the same was not blood-stained. During the recovery proceedings no independent witness had been associated by the prosecution, therefore, case against the petitioner falls within the ambit of further inquiry entitling him to be released on bail. Accordingly I accept this petition and admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.