2014 PLP 2146 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD ANWAARUL HAQ, J.

Through this petition, Naseer Ahmed petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. 41, dated 21-2-2013, registered at Police Station Wahndo, District Gujranwala, in respect of offences under sections 302, 324 and 34, P.P.C.

2. Arguments heard. Record perused.

3. Petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and was subsequently involved in this case on the basis of statement of the injured/deceased Abdul Jabbar dated 8-3-2013. I have noticed that initially, F.I.R. in this case was registered under section 324, P.P.C. and petitioner Naseer Ahmed was shown as an eyewitness of the occurrence, even his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. was also recorded by the police. The only evidence referred by the learned counsel for the complainant against the petitioner is the statement of the deceased allegedly made in his life time on 8-3-2013 after about 15 days of the occurrence, wherein he has not attributed any fire to the petitioner and has stated that he took lift from the petitioner on his motorcycle, in the meantime, one unknown accused had fired at him. I have noticed that the deceased Abdul Jabbar was brought to the hospital on 21-2-2013 in a very serious condition and as per endorsement of Dr. Waheed, dated 21-2-2013, he was unfit to make any statement at that time. Learned counsel for the complainant points out that the injured Abdul Jabbar initially remained in very dangerous condition but on 21-3-2013, he was discharged from the hospital and later on was expired after about two months and ten days of the alleged occurrence. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, statement of the injured/deceased, the only evidence relied upon by the prosecution against the petitioner, is yet to be scrutinized whether the same was got recorded by the injured himself and whether that can be used as dying declaration but fact remains that statement of Abdul Jabbar even otherwise, prima facie, does not incriminate the petitioner in this occurrence in any manner whatsoever because the injured took lift from the petitioner on motorcycle, some unknown accused had fired at the deceased and petitioner as per his statement ran away from the place of occurrence. I have noticed with concern that statement of the petitioner recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. also reflects the same narration of the occurrence wherein he has categorically stated that after firing at the deceased by some unknown accused he ran away from the spot to save his life. However, he voluntarily did appear before the Investigating Officer on the same day and got recorded his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. In view of all above, I am of the considered view that question of culpability of the petitioner, can validly be determined by the learned trial Court after recording of some evidence in trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner states at bar that petitioner is previously non-convict and is behind the bars since 22-12-2013. Therefore, without further commenting upon the merits of the case, I accept this petition and admit the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds 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.

4. It is, however, clarified that observations made herein above are just tentative in nature and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition. MWA/N-35/L Bail granted.