2017 PLP 164 (YLRN)

ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.

Through this petition under section 497 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No.334/2012 dated 26.05.2012 under sections 302, 324, 109, 34 P.P.C., registered at Police Station Sadar Beroni Rawalpindi.

2. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties have been heard and record of this case has also been perused with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and deeper appreciation is not allowed at this stage. The allegation against the petitioner in the FIR is that he caught Muhammad Farooq deceased and made lalkara to his son to kill him on which Hamid Ameen caused fire arm injury to Muhammad Farooq deceased. Later on, the petitioner gave blow on the head of the complainant, however, according to MLC of the complainant, the injury attributed to the petitioner is skin deep which could be considered as simple as the doctor has not declared the same till date as to under what section it falls. Admittedly, Hamid Ameen, the main accused who has been attributed fatal injury to the deceased is son of petitioner so possibility cannot be ruled out of consideration that the complainant has involved the petitioner by widening the net which is common practice in our society. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not caused any injury to the deceased, so vicarious liability of the petitioner or his sharing common intention with his co-accused for committing murder of the deceased shall be determined by the learned trial Court after recording evidence. In this respect, reliance can be placed on Mumtaz Hussain and 5 others v. The State 1996 SCMR 1125. Admittedly, the petitioner is previous non-convict. He is behind the bars since 14.02.2015 without any fruitful progress in his trial. Investigation of the case is complete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation. As far as contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that the petitioner remained P.O. for considerable period, I may observe here that mere absconsion of accused is no ground to refuse bail if otherwise he becomes entitled to the grant of bail. Nobody could be kept in jail for an indefinite period. 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 bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety 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. WA/M-129/L Bail granted.