2001 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.302/34‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused during investigation‑‑‑Only evidence against the accused was that of last‑seen‑‑‑Motive of occurrence was attributed to the co‑accused and not the accused‑‑‑Case against the accused fell within the ambit of further inquiry which had entitled him to the concession of bail‑‑‑Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Abdul Rasheed Rashid for Petitioner. Malik Sajid Feroze for the Complainant. Maulvi Abdul Hameed for the State. The petitioner seeks grant of bail in case F.I.R. No.227 of 1999 registered under section 302/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Ahmadpur Lammah on the grounds that it was a case of unseen occurrence, that during investigation nothing was recovered from the possession of the petitioner; that motive is not attributed to him and that the only evidence against the petitioner is that of last‑seen which itself is not sufficient to connect the petitioner with offence of murder. Conversely, learned counsel for the complainant as well as the State has vehemently opposed the bail application on the grounds that it was a case of promptly lodged F.I.R.; the petitioner is specifically named in it; that the petitioner was seen by the P.Ws. taking away the deceased; the trial in this case has already been fixed for evidence and in the circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to concession of bail.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The only allegation against the petitioner as alleged in the F.I.R. is that he alongwith his co‑accused Bashir Ahmad, was seen going alongwith Ghulam Hussain deceased on the night between 10/11‑11‑1999, who never returned and on the next day at about 2‑00 p.m. the dead body of the deceased was found lying in the cotton field. The petitioner was arrested on 19‑12‑1999 in this case. During tote investigation nothing was recovered from his possession. Admittedly, the only evidence against the petitioner, so far collected by the prosecution, is that of last‑seen, the motive of this occurrence is also attributed to the co‑accused of the petitioner. It is not appropriate to analyse the prosecution evidence at this stage, lest it may prejudice the case of either party, prima facie, the case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of further inquiry which entitles him to the concession of bail. Accordingly, this instant petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with two sureties in the .like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./G‑96/L ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.