NAVEED AHMAD Versus State

ORDER

IQBAL HAMEED-UR-RAHMAN, J.--- The learned counsel seeks post arrest bail of the petitioner in F.I.R. No.493 of 2008 dated 20-11-2008 under sections 302, 449, 148, 149, 109, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Miana Gondal, District Mandi Baha-ud-Din.

2. Briefly, according to the F.I.R. the instant occurrence was committed by 25 persons, armed with deadly weapons as a result of which, Shahzad died at the spot. Motive behind the occurrence is stated that there is a dispute of agricultural land. between Khan Muhammad and one Sher Muhammad.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner has been found innocent by the police during the course of investigation, which was never challenged by the complainant party. According to him, no specific role is attributed to the petitioner in the F.I.R. whereas only aerial firing is attributed to the petitioner. According to him the deceased died with the injury caused by the co-accused and a wider net has been thrown to falsely implicate the whole family due to previous enmity. It is further stated that the petitioner's side is complainant of case F.I.R. No.324 of 2007 which was lodged on 7-8-2007 under sections 324, 148, 149 and section 302; P.P.C. was added later on; that criminal complaint was filed which is pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi Baha-ud-Din; that the complainant has himself admitted that there is a dispute of agricultural land. It is further stated that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner and that he is behind the bars since his arrest. Co-accused Khan Muhammad has already been allowed bail by this Honourable Court.

4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General, Punjab, concedes that the petitioner has been found innocent during the course of investigation. According to him only aerial firing is attributed to the petitioner.

5. Arguments heard, record perused.

6. The contents of the F.I.R. are not clear of doubts. Admittedly there is previous litigation between the parties. In this regard civil and criminal litigation between the parties is still pending adjudication. The role attributed to the petitioner is that of making aerial firing. The petitioner was not present at the spot at the time of occurrence. He is not alleged to have caused any injury to the deceased. The fire-arm injuries are attributed to the co-accused. The petitioner has been declared innocent during the course of investigation. The parties have a long standing inimical relationship and in the circumstances presence of the witnesses of the complainant at the Bhathak of petitioner becomes doubtful; therefore, false involvement of the petitioner cannot be ruled out. At present guilt of the petitioner required further inquiry and in such like cases there is a consistent view of the superior Courts that the bail should not be withheld. Reliance can be placed to the case of Nazar Hussain and 2 others v. The State and another 2008 PCr.LJ. 850, Malik Ejaz Ali v. The State 2005 MLD 997, Muhammad Afzal Patwari v. The State 2007 YLR 392, Allah Bakhsh v. The State 2007 PCr. LJ 1755.

7. In view of what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed. The petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing surety bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

H.B.T./N-81/L Bail granted.