1. Through this petition under section 497 Cr.P.C. the petitioner Mehmood has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No.403/2014 dated 26.11.2014 under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, 109, 337 A(i), 337 F(ii), 337 A(ii), 337 F(iii), 337 F(i) PPC, registered at Police Station Raja Jang, Kasur.
2. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties have been heard and 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 in the FIR is that he allegedly inflicted “Suble” blow on the head of complainant which injury falls under section 337 A(ii) PPC and carries maximum punishment upto five years only. Allegedly, petitioner alongwith co-accused Farooq also inflicted hatchet blow on right eye brow, right ear, left cheek and right elbow which injures have been declared by doctor as 337 F(ii) PPC and 337 F(i) PPC. The offence under section 337 F(ii) carries maximum punishment of three years only whereas 337 F(i) PPC which is bailable offence.
Admittedly, the petitioner alongwith brother has been involved in this case so possibility cannot be ruled out of consideration that the complainant has involved the petitioner by widening the net which is common practice in our society. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not caused any injury to the deceased, so vicarious liability of the petitioner or his sharing common intention with his co-accused for committing murder of the deceased shall be determined by the learned trial Court after recording evidence. In this respect, reliance can be placed on Mumtaz Hussain and 5 others vs The State 1996 SCMR 1125.
Co-accused namely Farooq of this case has already been granted bail after arrest by this Court vide order dated 02.02.2016, hence, the petitioner is also entitled for concession of bail under the ground of rule of consistency. Admittedly, the petitioner is previous non-convict. He is behind the bars since 12.02.2015 without any fruitful progress in his trial. Investigation of the case is complete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation. Nobody could be kept in jail for an indefinite period. His further incarceration in jail would not serve any useful purpose. Mere heinousness of offence is no ground to refuse bail to the accused, who otherwise becomes entitled for this concession.
3. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry covered by sub-section (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.2,00,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. However, the learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial of this case within six months positively after receipt of certified copy of this order under intimation to this Court through Deputy Registrar (Judicial) and if the petitioner hampered with the proceedings of trial, the complainant is at liberty to file application for cancellation of his bail.
4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only.
Further information regarding post arrest bail matters can be solicited from AUJ LAWYERS. Feel free to contact us in case you need any clarification and/or require legal assistance regarding similar matters.