2018 PLP 215 (YLRN)

ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.

Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioners Muhammad Yousaf and Sharaf Ali have sought bail after arrest in case FIR No.625/2017 dated 11.10.2017 under sections 302, 34, P.P.C. subsequently vide zimni No. 18 dated 05.12.2017 section 311, P.P.C. was added, registered at Police Station Saddar Pakpattan.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of this case with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and deeper appreciation of evidence is not allowed at this stage. It is noticed by this Court that initially the petitioner No.1 was complainant of this case but during investigation, he was found involved in this case as accused on the statements of PWs Umar Hayat and Riaz recorded on 05.12.2017. Admittedly, the statements of said PWs was recorded by the investigation officer under section 161 Cr.P.C. after about one month and twenty-four days of the occurrence and the fact why they have remained mum for such a long period has cast serious doubt about the involvement of petitioners in this case as far as present petitioners are concerned. It is settled law that delayed statements, of PWs recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. have got little value. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the case of Ghulam Qadir and 2 others v. The State (2008 SCMR 1221). It is also noticed that the said PWs are not residence of the same village as per affidavit of Lumberdar of the village. The only witness mentioned in the FIR namely Muhammad Ismail has also submitted affidavit that at the time of occurrence, he along with petitioners reached at the spot and they saw the dead body of Sallan Bibi sister of the petitioner No.1 in the house, while Umar Daraz and Sajid alias Saji were running from the house. All these facts create serious doubt to the extent of involvement of petitioners in the prosecution story and it is settled law that benefit of doubt arising out of prosecution case can be extended to accused even at bail stage. Reliance in this regard is placed on case titled as "Imbrass and another v. The State and another" "2016 SCMR 1558." The petitioners are previous non-convict, never involved in any criminal case, they are behind the bars since 25.12.2017; investigation qua them is complete; challan has been submitted in the learned trial court on 09.02.2018; mere heinousness of offence is no ground to withheld discretion of post-arrest bail in favour of an accused if otherwise he become entitled to bail; no useful purpose would be served by keeping them behind the bars, thus, their further incarceration would not serve any beneficial purpose at this stage.

3. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioners calls for further inquiry into their guilt covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioners are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand only) each 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. MQ/M-43/L Bail grante