MUHAMMAD SOHAIL alias JUGI vs THE STATE

ORDER

' The petitioner through the instant application seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R.No.73 of 2004 dated 23-3-2004 under section 324/34, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station, Qureshi, District Muzaffargarh .

2. Brief facts of the case as narrated by the complainant Muhammad Bilal son of Khadim Hussain are that petitioner along with his co-accused caused fire-arm injury to the injured Muhammad Bilal. Hence, the instant case vide F.I.R. No.73 of 2004 dated 23-3-2004 under section 324/34, P.P.C.

Was registered at Police Station, Qureshi.

3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is an unexplained delay of 12 hours in lodging of F.I.R. Whereas the distance between place of occurrence and police station is only five miles; that according to the prosecution, a single fire-arm injury is attributed to the petitioner; that during the repeated investigations conducted on the behest of the complainant the story narrated in the F.I.R. Was found false and petitioner was found innocent; that the petitioner is a boy of 18 years of age and is a first offender; that the injuries attributed to the accused is GhayrJaifah entailing maximum punishment for 5 years which does not fall within the prohibitory Clause of section 497(2), Cr.P.C.; that the investigation has been completed and the petitioner is behind the bar for the last 9 months and no progress has been made in the trial and that petitioner is a previous non-convict.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposed the bail application on the grounds that; petitioner and other co-accused are nominated in the F.I.R.; that, the recovery has been effected from him; that the challan has been submitted on 14-4-2004 in which charge has been framed and witnesses have been summoned but no evidence is recorded as yet.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is not denied that in the investigation conducted on the behest of complainant, the petitioner and the other co- accused were found innocent. The injury attributed to the petitioner is not on the vital part of the body. The injuries sustained at the most fell under provision of section 337-F(2), P.P.C. And did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Afsar v.

The State 1994 SCM R 2051, wherein the bail was granted by the Honourable Supreme Court as the injury was not on the vital part of the body. Similarly reliance is placed on Amanullah v. State. 2005 M LD 415, wherein learned Judge in Chamber granted bail holding that injury on non-vital part of the body was of much relevance to determine the intention or knowledge of accused as envisaged by section 324, P.P.C. The precedent quoted by the learned counsel for the petitioner fully supported his contention. In this view of the matter, the case of the petitioner called for further probe, within the meaning of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last 9 months. He cannot be retained in custody indefinitely as the trial has not commenced so far.

6. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.