2002 PLP 1077 (MLD)

Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioners. Mian Abid Huss.in for the State. Date of hearing: 12th May, 2001. Through this petition, Niaz alias Nazoo son of Lal and Jamal son of Nadir, petitioners, have sought their post‑arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No.117 of 2000 dated 3‑6‑2000 registered at Police Station Sihooka, District Vehari, under sections 302. 109, 148 and 34, P. P. C. 2: According to the F.I.R., four persons namely Allah Ditta son of Nazar, Madad Ali ,alias Maddi, Noor Ahmad alias Nooru and Mumtaz alias Fauji alias Fayyaz, armed with fire‑arm weapons caused death of Falak Sher, 'real brother of the complainant. According to F.I.R., the occurrence was witnessed by the complainant alongwith his brother Bashir Ahmad and Ghafoor Ahmed P. Ws. and Mst. Bashiran wife of the deceased. Supplementary statement of Nasir Ahmad complainant was also recorded on the same day i.e. 3‑6‑2000. According to his statement Falak Sher was also given injuries by the barrels and butts of the guns. The petitioners were arrested in this case on 19‑7‑2000 after the statement of Mst. Bashiran, which was recorded for the first time on 17‑7‑2000.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It. has been noticed that neither the names of the petitioners have been mentioned in the F.I.R. nor in any statement of the P.Ws., which were recorded on the date of occurrence i.e. 3‑6‑2000. Statement of Mst. Bashiran was recorded after about 1‑1/2 months of the occurrence, Wherein she has levelled a general allegation and has conceded that she did not see the occurrence herself. It has been conceded by the learned State counsel after going through the record that no recovery has been effected from the petitioners and only incriminating evidence against the petitioner is available in the statement of Mst. Bashiran and that according to the investigation of the D.S.P. the petitioners were found to be innocent.

4. I have also gone through the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Burewala, dated 9‑4‑2001, wherein he without mentioning any reason dismissed the bail application of the petitioners and has only referred the order, which has been passed in an anticipatory bail petition moved by their co‑accused on 26‑10‑2000. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has not applied his mind that the consideration for pre‑arrest, bail and post‑arrest bail are totally different.

5. For what has been discussed above, the allegation levelled against the petitioners need further probe and inquiry and their case falls within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, am inclined to release the petitioners on bail, subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) each, with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./N‑173/L Bail granted.