Syed IJAZ HUSSAIN SHAH Versus State
ORDER
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.--- Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. Syed Ijaz Hussain Shah petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No. 58/14, dated 16.11.2014 registered at Police Station Bangi Khel, Mianwali in respect of offences under sections 302/34, P.P.C.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed by this Court that according to the allegations leveled in the FIR petitioner was armed with pistol .30 bore, he raised lalkara at the spot and he made fire at Umer Fiaz Shah deceased which landed on his right thigh. The Post mortem Examination Report of Umer Fiaz Shah reflects entry wound of injury No. 3 at his right thigh which is attributed to the petitioner and injury No. 4 is exit wounds of injury No. 3. A careful analysis of Post mortem Examination Report of Umer Fiaz Shah shows that injury No. 4 contains four exit wounds and the doctor has clearly mentioned in the Post-mortem Examination Report that these four exit wounds are pellet wounds which fact contradict the allegation of the prosecution that the petitioner was armed with pistol .30 bore because bullet of pistol .30 bore does not left four exit wounds. This fact prima facie creates doubt qua the role of the petitioner during occurrence. It is settled law that reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case can be considered at bail stage. Admittedly the parties to this case are closely related to each other because the complainant is father-in-law of the petitioner. During the investigation of this case father of the petitioner namely Qabool Shah has been found empty-handed at the scene of crime at relevant time, therefore, he has been admitted to post-arrest bail vide order dated 22.04.2015. The complainant has involved two real brothers along with their father, therefore, possibility of false implication of the petitioner by the complainant cannot be ruled out of consideration by widening the net. The petitioner is previous non-convict, never involved in any criminal case, he is behind the bars for the last more than one year, investigation of this case has already been completed, therefore, his continuous incarceration in jail would not serve any beneficial purpose at this stage. There is no likelihood of an early conclusion of trial.
3. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of further inquiry covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
4. Before parting with this order it is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove are just tentative in nature and the same will not prejudice to the learned trial court at the time of trial.
WA/I-21/L Bail granted.