MUHAMMAD AAMIR YOUSAF Versus State

ORDER

ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.--- Through this petition under section 497 Cr.P.C. the petitioner Muhammad Aamar Yousaf has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No.152/2015 dated 29.05.2015 under sections 324, 109, 148, 149, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Sandal Bar, District Faisalabad.

2. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record of this case has also been perused with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and deeper appreciation of evidence is not allowed at this stage. The allegation against the petitioner is that he made three successive fires with his pistol .30 bore which landed on the abdomen of Muhammad Amjad injured. It has been noticed that MLC, of the injured victim has been challenged by the accused before District Standing Board and during re-examination of the injured Muhammad Amjad, it has been opined by the District Standing Board that injuries Nos.1 to 4 attributed to petitioner and his co-accused Muhammad Shah Zaman have been caused by blunt means, hence, the question regarding attraction of Section 324, P.P.C. to the extent of petitioner shall be determined by the learned trial Court after recording prosecution evidence. Co-accused namely Muhammad Shah Zaman of this case has already been granted bail after arrest by this Court vide order dated 02.05.2016, hence, the petitioner is also entitled for concession of bail under the ground of rule of consistency. Admittedly the petitioner was arrested in this case on 06.11.2015, since then he is in jail. Nobody can be kept in jail for an indefinite period. Admittedly the petitioner is previous non-convict and never involved in any other case of such like nature. The investigation of the case is complete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation. The offence with which the petitioner is charged is triable by Magistrate Section 30 who is competent to pass sentence for seven years only. Mere heinousness of offence is no ground to refuse the concession of bail to an accused, who otherwise, becomes entitled for concession of bail on the merits of the case. No useful purpose would be served by keeping him 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 two sureties each 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.

JK/M-168/L Petition allowed.