MUHAMMAD ISMAIL Versus State

ORDER

ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.--- Through this petition under section 498, Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought bail before arrest in case FIR No.298/15, dated 13.07.2015 registered for the offences under sections 337-F(i), 337-F(iv), 337-H(2), 148, 149, P.P.C., Police Station Ellaabad, District Kasur.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Deputy Prosecutor General and learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record with their able assistance. This is bail before arrest and only tentative assessment is required at this stage. It has been noticed that although the petitioner is named in FIR, yet the fact remains that there is a delay of five days in reporting the matter to the police, which has not been explained by the complainant, which prima facie shows that the FIR has been lodged after due deliberation and consultation. It has been further noticed that no injury whatsoever has been attributed to the present petitioner qua the injured/complainant and only the role of ineffective firing is attributed to him therein. During arguments, the Investigating Officer of the instant case also confirmed that no crime empty was taken into possession by him during spot inspection, which prima facie makes the allegation of aerial firing against the petitioner to be of doubtful nature. Even otherwise, the question of sharing common intention by the petitioner with his co-accused shall be determined by the learned trial Court after recording evidence. Moreso, the offences under sections 337-F(i) and 337-H(2), P.P.C. are bailable in nature, while the offence under section 337-F(iv), P.P.C. carried punishment upto five years only. Admittedly the petitioner is previous non-convict and never involved in any other case of such like nature, therefore, section 337-N(2), P.P.C. also comes to his rescue because neither he is hardened, dangerous, desperate criminal nor he has committed the alleged offence on the pretext of honour. He has already joined the investigation. The person of the petitioner cannot be handed over to the police merely for effecting recovery, which in the absence of crime empties is otherwise of little significance.

3. Keeping in view the above diicussion, false implication of the petitioner by the complainant by widening the net cannot be ruled out of consideration. This petition is, therefore, allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail alreally granted to the petitioner vide this Court's order dated 24.08.2015 is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupes fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court/Area Magistrate.

4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only.

HBT/M-306/L Bail confirmed.