2018 P Cr (PLP)

ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.

Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner Zahoor Ahmad has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No.401/2016 dated 10.07.2016 under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Saddar Depalpur District Okara.

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. Although the petitioner is named in the FIR with the allegation that he along with his co-accused while armed with .12 bore gun made fire shot which hit Nasir Iqbal deceased on his chest but during investigation conducted so far it has come on record that Muhammad Azam co-accused is the main accused who caused fire arm injuries to both the deceased Nasir Iqbal and Abdul Ghafoor and the petitioner was present at the spot but he did not cause any injury to any of the deceased rather he is instrumental in the murder of both the deceased as he has brought co-accused Azam, the main accused to the place of occurrence. Although, opinion of the police is not binding on the Courts of law, yet the same can be taken into consideration while deciding bail applications, therefore, by keeping in view the contents of FIR and the outcome of investigation, prima facie the case of prosecution to the extent of petitioner has become a case of two versions i.e. one put forward by the complainant and the other came on record during investigation and which version is correct shall be determined by the learned trial court after recording evidence. Reliance can easily be placed upon 2012 SCMR 1137 (Ehsan Ullah v. The State). Admittedly, as per report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency, two empties matched with the crime weapon recovered from co-accused Azam whereas the recovery allegedly effected from the present petitioner did not match with any of the empty recovered at the spot. As far as question of sharing common intention for the murder of both the deceased with his co-accused is concerned, the same shall be decided by the learned trial court after recording evidence. Admittedly, the petitioner is previous non-convict. It is settled law that mere heinousness of offence is no ground to refuse bail to an accused who otherwise becomes entitled to the concession of bail. He is behind the bars since 29.09.2016. Investigation of the case is complete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation. His further incarceration in jail would not serve any useful purpose.

3. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry covered by subsection (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.

4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only. JK/Z-8/L Bail granted.