MUHAMMAD IRFAN SHAHZAD Versus State
ORDER
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.--- Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner Muhammad Irfan Shahzad has sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No.462/2017, dated 09.08.2017 under sections 337-A(iii), 337-A(i), 337-L(2), 34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Satellite Town, Jhang.
2. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record of this case has been perused with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and deeper appreciation of evidence is not allowed at this stage. It has been noticed by this Court that there is a delay of twelve days in registration of the FIR, which has not been explained by the complainant, which prima facie shows that the FIR has been got registered after due deliberation and consultation. As per FIR, the role attributed to the present petitioner is that he gave blow of Sota on the nose of complainant which injury has been declared by the doctor as 'shajjah-i-hashimah' and falls under section 337-A(iii), P.P.C. I may observe here that while deciding bail petition, maximum punishment is not to be considered and the punishment likely to be awarded to the petitioner according to the facts and circumstances of this case is to be considered. Even otherwise, the offence with which the petitioner is charged, triable by Magistrate Section-30 who can award punishment upto seven years only and whether it is a fit case to be sent to the Court of Session under section 347, Cr.P.C. for maximum imprisonment i.e. ten years or not shall be determined by learned trial court after recording evidence. It is also settled law that when there are two inferences, the one in favour of the accused shall be drawn. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of " Province of Punjab, through Secretary Punjab Public Prosecution Department and another v. Muhammad Rafique and others " PLD 2018 Supreme Court 178. Petitioner was arrested in this case on 12.12.2017 and since then he is behind the bars without any fruitful progress towards the conclusion of his trial. Investigation of the case is complete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation. Nobody can be kept in jail for indefinite period; therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars.
3. For what has been discussed above the case of the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is granted bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bond 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. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only.
MQ/M-58/L Bail granted.