2011 PLP 1734 (YLR)

MAZHAR IQBAL SIDHU, J.

Muhammad Iqbal seeks post arrest bail, who had been refused the same relief by the learned trial Court, in a case registered vide F.I.R. No. 370, dated 28-8-2010, under sections 109/34/302, P.P.C. at Police Station Khairpur Tamewali, District Bahawalpur, on the complaint of Aqeel-ur-Rehman, for an occurrence which took place on the same day at about 12-30 p.m.

2. Precisely, the allegations mentioned in the F.I.R. are that on the day of occurrence, complainant along with his father Haji Riaz Ahmad, Abdul Aziz and Bashir Ahmad reached at their fields for spreading pesticides over cotton crop. In the meanwhile, three persons on a motor cycle came there. Out of whom, two persons were nominated in the F.I.R. as Muhammad Arshad and Mumtaz alias Taji (P.Os.) and an unknown person who could be identified by the complainant and the P.Ws. if came before them, while raising lalkara that Haji Riaz Ahmad deceased be taught a lesson over the litigation. Mumtaz alias Taji made a fire shot with his rifle hitting on the right side of chest of the deceased. Thereafter, he was followed by Muhammad Arshad co-accused, who made a fire shot with his Repeater gun hitting on the right side of the chest and has made another fire shot which hit on the upper part of the right arm. Thereafter, said persons disappeared from the place of occurrence on the same motor cycle. It has further been alleged that incident took place on the abetment/instigation of Allah Din, Abdul Hakeem and Muhammad Shafique co-accused.

3. In support of this bail petition, it has been argued that petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R. and even in the subsequent supplementary statements of the P.Ws., he played no role in the commission of crime and during investigation, nothing has been recovered from the petitioner.

4. Learned D.P.-G. has opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner on the grounds that during investigation, sufficient incriminating material has been collected against the petitioner and offence under which the petitioner has been charged, falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of Cr.P.C. and is not entitled for the concession of bail, particularly when co-accused of the petitioner are proclaimed offenders.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant has also supported the arguments of learned D.P.-G.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

7. It has been observed that petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R. In the supplementary statements recorded after registration of the case of P.Ws. on different dates including complainant, no active role has been assigned to the petitioner in the commission of crime. Nothing has been recovered from the petitioner during investigation of the case. Relying upon Ghulam Murtaza v. The State (2004 PCr.LJ 296) and Maqbool Ahmad v. The State and another (2007 MLD 436), case of the petitioner has come within the phrase of further inquiry as envisaged under section 497(2), Cr.P.C.

8. Hence, instant petition is allowed and petitioner is granted bail subject to this furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. N.H.Q./M-79/L Bail allowed.