As per the contents of the crime report, the petitioner along with co-accused while armed with ‘churri’ assaulted upon the complainant and gave him a blow on the left side of the head. The crime report was lodged after an inordinate delay of five days for which not even a single word has been put forward by the complainant. The delayed registration of FIR prima facie shows deliberations and consultation on the part of the complainant. We have been informed that co-accused of the petitioner, who were specifically named in the crime report, have been granted prearrest bail by the learned court of competent jurisdiction. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the petitioner has been involved in the case by throwing a wider net by the complainant especially when it is the case of the petitioner that the FIR was registered against one Zeeshan but the name of the petitioner has subsequently been added portraying him as Abdul Rehman alias Muhammad Zeeshan. However, we do not want to give any finding on this aspect of the matter, lest it may prejudice the case of either of the parties before the Trial Court. It is the Trial Court, who after recording of evidence would decide about the guilt or otherwise of the petitioner and till then the petitioner cannot be put behind the bars for an indefinite period. This court has time and again held that liberty of a person is a precious right, which cannot be taken away. Merely on the basis of bald allegations, the liberty of a person cannot be curtailed. The petitioner is a young man having no criminal history and keeping him behind the bars with the hardened criminals would not be in the interest of justice. It is now established that while granting pre-arrest bail, the merits of the case can be touched upon by the Court. Reliance is placed on Miran Bux Vs. The State (PLD 1989 SC 347), Sajid Hussain @ Joji Vs. The State (PLD 2021 SC 898), Javed Iqbal Vs. The State (PLD 2022 SCMR 1424) & Muhammad Ijaz Vs. The State (2022 SCMR 1271). Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances stated above, we are of the view that the case of the petitioner squarely falls within the ambit of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. entitling for further inquiry into his guilt.




0 Comments