KHALID Versus State
ORDER
As per F.I.R. On 14-10-2003 petitioner along with 36 persons while armed with different weapons reached the "Dera" of complainant, gave them beating and took away tractor etc. Belonging to the complainant whereas case was registered on 18-10-2003. The petitioners were arrested on 30-11-2003. Hence this bail application.
2. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. Further submits that complainant got registered case against 41 persons but during investigation 36 persons were found to be innocent, therefore, prosecution story becomes doubtful and petitioners are entitled to be released on bail only on this ground. He contended that challart has been submitted under sections 380/342/447/109/148/149/337-F(i)/337-F(iii), P.P.C. And offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. He further contended that according to prosecution case tractor and motorcycle were recovered from the accused/petitioners but it is joint recovery, therefore, the same has no value, therefore, petitioners deserve concession of bail.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application on the grounds that petitioners are named in the F.I.R. And that they along with their co-accused while armed with different weapons attacked the complainant party to forcibly occupy the land owned by his paternal uncle, Muhammad Ashraf.
5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties with care. As mentioned above the prosecution case is that petitioners along with their co-accused while armed with different weapons reached the "Dera" of complainant, gave them beating and took away tractor etc., belonging to them. Shabbir Ahmed S.I. Who is present in person in Court, states that during investigation tractor was recovered from Irsand, Khalid and Afzal whereas motorcycle was recovered from Falak Sher and Abbas and that 36 persons were found to be innocent. Also that the petitioners have been challaned under sections 380/342/ 447/209/248/149/337-F(i)/337-F(iii), P.P.C. And that Ghulam Sarwar, co-accused was allowed bail by learned trial Court. As mentioned above prosecution case is that petitioners alongwith 36 persons while armed with different weapons reached the place of occurrence to forcibly occupy land owned by complainant party and gave them beating but during investigation 36 persons were found to be innocent. The petitioner are in judicial lock-up since 30-11-2003 but trial has not commenced so far. The offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. In these circumstances without going into merit of the case I find it a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the State has not opposed this application. So application brought by 'petitioners is accepted and they are allowed bail (in case F.I.R. No.518 of 2003, dated 18-10-2003) under sections 364/380/447/109/342/148/149/337-F(i)/337-F(iii), P.P.C., Police Station, Pindi Bhattian, Distriu Hafizabad, subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
H.B.T./K-55/L Bail granted.