MUHAMMAD RASHEED alias SHEEDA Versus State
ORDER
HAFIZ SHAHID NADEEM KAHLOON, J.--- Muhammad Rasheed @ Sheeda, the accused-petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No.114-2012 dated 09.04.2012, registered under Sections 302, 324, 337/A(ii), F(i), F(iii), L(2), 379, 148/149, P.P.C., at P.S. Theengi, District Vehari.
2. The brief facts as per prosecution story are that on 08.04.2012 at about 6.00 pm the petitioner along with his co-accused while armed with deadly weapons formed unlawful assembly in the area of Chak No.89/WB and in furtherance of their common object, launched murderous assault upon the complainant party as a result of which Muhammad Asif lost his life, whereas Asim Masood, Babar Ali, Rehmat Ali and Laeeq Masood PWs were injured. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that he while armed with sota gave blows on the left shoulder, back side of neck, right shoulder and chest of Laeeq Masood, who fell on the ground that then other accused persons thrashed him with their respective weapons.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. As per FIR, the petitioner while armed with sota caused injuries hitting on the different parts of one Laeeq Masood, but as per medical report of said injured, injury No.3 caused to him, is attributed to the petitioner as observed by the Doctor. Moreover, no injury for inflicting to the deceased is attributed to the petitioner or other injured PWs. Only one injury for causing to the said PW is attributed to the petitioner, which comes within the ambit of Section 337-F(iii), P.P.C. and punishment thereof is provided for three years and offence does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. Allegedly the petitioner remained fugitive from law for three years. It is settled law that abscondance of accused and commencement of trial is no ground for refusal of bail, if case of the accused falls within the ambit of further inquiry, as per law laid down by the August Supreme Court of Pakistan in cases reported as " Ehsan-ullah v. The State " (2012 SCMR 1137), " Mitho Pitafi v. The State " (2009 SCMR 299) and " Qamar alias Mitho v. The State and others " (PLD 2012 SC 222). The vicarious liability for causing injuries either to the injured PWs or deceased will be seen by the learned trial Court after recording the evidence and case to his extent also covers by subsection (2) of 497, Cr.P.C. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of post arrest bail.
6. The petitioner has been languishing in jail since 23.04.2015 and no more required for further investigation which is complete. Hence, his further detention in jail would serve no fruitful purpose to the prosecution.
7. The up-shot of my foregoing discussion is that this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However, the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of three months after the receipt of this order.
HBT/M-36/L Bail granted.