2022 PLP 568 (YLR)

MOHSIN AKHTAR KAYANI, J.

Through this Crl. Misc., petitioner has prayed for post-arrest bail in case FIR No.380, dated 14.10.2011, under sections 302/201, P.P.C., Police Station Sihala, Islamabad.

2. Brief facts referred in the instant FIR lodged on the complaint of Muhammad Farooq/respondent No. 2 are that her daughter Maimoona Fatima was doing private job at Islamabad and was residing in a rented room near Sihala Railway crossing. He received phone call from one Muhammad Sameen on his mobile that her daughter was found dead in the room and room was locked from outside. The complainant reached at the address of her daughter and after opening the lock he found her deceased daughter who has been strangulated with dopata and personal belonging of the deceased were missing including mobile and papers. Hence, this FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case, even he has been nominated through supplementary statement which has no evidentiary value; that challan has been submitted in the court but trial has not yet been commenced; that petitioner is behind the bars since 15.11.2020 for no useful purpose.

4. Conversely, leaned counsel for the complainant as well as learned State Counsel contends that petitioner has been nominated through supplementary statement and even personal mobile of deceased was recovered from him, which connects the petitioner with this hideous crime of murder; that challan has been submitted in the court and it is appropriate that direction be issued for the early conclusion of the trial.

5. Arguments heard record perused.

6. The tentative assessment of record reveals that petitioner is accused in the above mentioned case though he has not been nominated at the initial stage of FIR rather he has been nominated through supplementary statement on 16.10.2020, where-after petitioner has been taken in custody on 15.10.2020 and mobile belonging to the deceased was recovered from him. As such the entire case is based upon circumstantial evidence which is admittedly weak type of evidence, even no last seen witness has been referred in this case. In such scenario when petitioner has been nominated in this through supplementary statement and investigation has been concluded and no incriminating material has been brought on record except the recovery of mobile phone of the deceased, the evidentiary value of alleged recovered mobile from petitioner would be considered by the trial court at the time of trial. There was no motive suggested in this case, even not mentioned in the FIR. All these aspects create ground of further inquiry in terms of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The accused is behind the bars since his date of arrest i.e. 15.11.2020. He was previous non-convict and his continuous incarceration in jail would not serve any beneficial purpose. Reliance is placed upon 2017 YLR Note 100 (Zumarad Khan v. The State and another), 2011 PCr.LJ 1737 (Asjad Mehmood v. The State and another), 2017 YLR 364 (Ghulam Murtaza alias Bubal v. The State and another).

7. At last the evidentiary value of supplementary statements of complainant and witnesses with the possibility of reconciling differences between the witnesses was an exercise that could be best undertaken after recording of evidence and as such culpability of accused for now was squarely covered by section 497(2), Cr.P.C. and accused was granted bail in circumstances in case reported as 2020 SCMR 935 Muhammad Jahangir Afzal v. The State through P.G. Punjab and another).

8. In view of above, instant post arrest bail petition is allowed. The petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lac only) with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of leaned trial Court. SA/226/Isl. Bail granted.