MANZOOR AHMAD Versus THE STATE
Mian Habib-ur-Rehman complainant got recorded F.I.R. No.62, dated 10-2-1995 under sections 458/380 and 411, P.P.C. with the allegation that 13/14 days before the registration of the case he awoke on the barking of the dog. Getting the impression about the presence of the thieves, he made to awake his father Muhammad Abdullah, his brother Aziz-ur-Rehman and one Muhammad Sabir (P.Ws.). Alongwith the licensed gun they came out. The electric bulb was on. They saw Aziz Ullah resident of Badli Sharif and another unidentified person taking away two heads of buffaloes owned by him which valued Rs.40,000. Those two persons were challenged, out of whom the unidentified person fired which fortunately did not hit anybody. Those persons were fired at with the licensed gun of Mian Habib-ur-Rehman complainant which hit left leg of unidentified person. Both of them made good their escape leaving buffaloes at the spot. The unidentified person was searched for when the unidentified person was identified as Manzoor Ahmad resident of Mauza Syadpur Police Station Bhong District Rahimyarkhan. According to the complainant it was at the instance of Abdul Marian accused that the occurrence has taken place. The Police recorded the statements of the P.Ws. on 10-2-1995. However, during the investigation after contacting Dr. Rana Maqsood Ahmad Medical Officer Bahadurpur the Police recorded his statement on 6-3-1995 who stated that six days before the advent of Holy month of Ramadhan at about 10-00 aim. three persons arrived in a car out of whom one was having the fire-arm injury on his left knee. They desired for the treatment of the injured but he told them that it was a Police case. Thereafter those persons went away. The Police has added Article 21 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. Section 109, P.P.C. Manzoor Ahmad petitioner-accused was arrested on 21-3-1995 who was got medically examined from the Medical Officer D.H.Q. Hospital Rahimyarkhan on 22-3-1995 who found one septic wound arid two healed scars on his left knee joint.
2. The co-accused Aziz Ullah and Abdul Manan have been admitted to bail while the lower Court has dismissed the bail application of Manzoor Ahmad petitioner who has filed this petition before this Court to try his luck to be admitted to bail.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and gone through the record before me. I am in full agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner who canvassed before me that the bail plea of Manzoor Ahmad petitioner has been rejected by the lower Court without any legal justification. The admitted position is that the recovery of both the buffaloes was effected by the Police when the said cattle were produced by the complainant. At this stage it is necessary to refer to the statement of Dr. Rana Maqsood Ahmad recorded on 6-3-1995 under section 161, Cr.P.C. Without prejudice to the merits I am tempted to express that he did not intimate the Police that any person having fire-arm injury contacted him. No document has been taken into possession by the Police from the custody of Dr. Rana Maqsood Ahmad to justify that the injured contacted him and that the name of that injured was Manzoor Ahmad Langah (petitioner). Even though in F.I.R. got recorded on 10-2-1995, it is mentioned that the name of unidentified accused was found to be Manzoor Ahmad Langah (petitioner), the statement of Dr. Rana Maqsood Ahmad was recorded on 6-3-1995. In the ruling published as Budho v. The State PLD 1965 (W.P.) Kar. 76 the statement of a witness recorded four days after the incident was ruled out of consideration. Even at this initial stage in view of the aforesaid aspect of the matter the statement of Dr. Rana Maqsood Ahmad need not be given the weight in favour of the prosecution. The admitted position is that after the arrest of Manzoor Ahmad Langah petitioner no identification parade has been got conducted which could prove to be corroborative piece of evidence. In such type of cases the taking into possession of the blood-stained earth is also an ingredient to strengthen the prosecution case which is admittedly missing and obviously the legal benefit shall have to be derived by Manzoor Ahmad petitioner. No doubt it is mentioned in the F.I.R. that the complainant contacted many doctors and visited many hospitals in search of unidentified accused but he did not name any of them. In view of the aforesaid state of affairs, analysis of the material to be produced by the prosecution during the trial and discussion, it can safely be expressed that the involvement of Manzoor Ahmad petitioner in the occurrence is a question of further inquiry who is B entitled to be admitted to bail. Consequently I do not agree with the learned State counsel who laid the emphasis that Manzoor Ahmad petitioner is involved in a heinous offence which falls within prohibitory clause. Legally the quantum of punishment of a penal provision of an offence has not only to play ?the legal role while disposing of a bail application as the same has to be decided keeping in view the yard stick(s) provided under section 497, Cr.P.C. which is relevant provision for the purpose of bail.
4. For what has been said above, I accept this application and admit Manzoor Ahmad petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the, satisfaction of Mr. Muhammad Aslam Khan, Additional Sessions Judge, Rahimyarkhan.
N.H.Q./M-2570/L ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.