2017 PLP 2524 (YLR)

ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.-- Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. Ehsan Ullah petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No. 341/15, dated 12.10.2015 registered at Police Station Miana Gondal, Mandi Bahauddin in respect of offences under sections 302/109/ 148/149, P.P.C.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record with their able assistance it has been noticed by this Court that this is bail after arrest and only tentative assessment is required at this stage. The petitioner is not named in the FIR and he has been introduced in this case as an abettor of the offence for the first time through a supplementary statement which was got recorded by the complainant on 20.01.2016, i.e. after three months and eight day. It is settled law that a belated supplementary statement has got no value in the eyes of law and the same cannot be considered as a substitute of First Information Report which is a document entered into the book maintained in Police Station containing allegations leveled by informant. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the cases of Flak Sher alias Sheru v. The State (1995 SCMR 1350) and Abid Ali alias Ali v. The State (2011 SCMR 161). It is very astonishing that two witnesses namely Naveed Ahmad and Najeeb Ahmad alleged to have come to know about involvement of the petitioner in this case on 13.10.2015 the very next day but they have kept mum till 20.01.2016, i.e. recording of supplementary statement by the complainant on their disclosure. These two witnesses are also witnesses of a joint extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the petitioner along with his co-accused namely Aurangzeb, Falak Sher and two un-known persons but law is quite settled on the point that an extra-judicial confession prima facie has the trapping of a joint confession which is inadmissible in evidence. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the case of Muhammad Waseem v. The State and another (2012 SCMR 387). Admittedly neither any motive for committing or managing murder of the deceased has been mentioned by the complainant in the FIR nor has he mentioned the same in his supplementary statement dated 20.01.2016, thus, so far no reason as to why the petitioner has managed the murder of the deceased has come on record. The petitioner is previous non-convict, never involved in any criminal case, investigation qua him is complete, his person is not required for further investigation, he is behind the bars since his arrest, report under section 173, Cr.P.C. has already been submitted in the learned trial court, therefore, his continuous incarceration in jail would not serve any beneficial purpose at this stage. Involvement of an accused in heinous offence is no ground to refuse him bail after arrest. Likewise, submission of report under section 173, Cr.P.C. does not create any hurdle in exercising discretionary relief of bail in favour of an accused person when otherwise a good case for grant of post-arrest bail is made out from the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. For what has been discussed above, the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 200,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court. JK/E-6/L Bail granted.