2011 YLR 2425 (PLP)

CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.

Petitioner Sikandar through the instant petition has prayed for after arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.406 registered under sections 302, 148, 149, 109, P.P.C. with Police Station Chenab Nagar, District Chiniot on 2-9-2009.

2. Briefly the prosecution case as per the F.I.R. is that on 2-9-2009 at about 8-30 a.m. Doosa and others, while having fire-arms, in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly formed by their, have committed the qatl-e-amd of deceased Malak Sher and attempted on the lives of the complainant party. It was on account of abduction of the daughter of Sikandar by one Akhtar, the nephew of the deceased and the accused had been demanding her restoration but the deceased had refused.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that the only role ascribed to him in the commission of the alleged crime is that he along with one Mushtaq had made straight fires on the complainant party but the same did not prove effective. Besides than this, there is no other role ascribed to him in the entire alleged incident.

4. According to the learned DPP, he during the investigation by one Muhammad Arshad, S.-I. has been found to be not present at the spot at the relevant time and it was merely that the incident had taken place on his abetment. According to him, he has been challaned to the court merely on the reason that the motive was attributed to him. I am afraid that in such situation, when the only above role of ineffective firing is ascribed to him and his presence at the spot has not been found to be there at the relevant time in the investigation and no recovery admittedly effected from him, it would yet to be seen at trial that if he ultimately can be held liable for the alleged offence. His case, thus, is open to further inquiry into his guilt and so, covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.

5. He is stated to be behind the bars for the last about seven months. Although according to the learned counsel for the complainant, the prosecution evidence has been summoned, but according to the case of "Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafique and another" (PLD 1989 SC 585) the commencement of trial cannot come as a clog in the way of relief of bail to him.

6. In these circumstances of the case, I have been persuaded to hold that the case for his enlargement on bail has been made out.

7. I, therefore, accept this petition and admit him to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lac only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

8. However, it is hereby clarified that the above observations are tentative in nature and meant only for the disposal of the matter in hand. These shall have no bearing at all on anybody's case at trial. H.B.T./S-224/L Bail granted.