2018 PLP 227 (YLRN)

ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.

Through this petition under section 497 Cr.P.C. the petitioner Muhammad Ikram has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No.228/2017 dated 23.06.2017 under sections 302, 324, 311, 452, 34, 109, 337-F(i), 337-F(iii), 337-F(v), P.P.C., registered at Police Station Kundian District Mianwali.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of this case with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and deeper appreciation of evidence is not allowed at this stage. Although the petitioner is named in the FIR with the allegation that he along with his co-accused while armed with Kalashnikov made fire shots which hit Muhammad Bilal on his little finger and on the chest of Fatima Bibi (deceased) but during investigation conducted so far it has come on record that Muhammad Waseem co-accused is the main accused who caused fire arm injury to deceased Fatima Bibi and it was in the knowledge of present petitioner that Muhammad Waseem is going to commit the occurrence. It has also come on record during investigation that neither the petitioner has caused any injury to the deceased or injured PW nor he was present at the spot. Although, opinion of the police is not binding on the Courts of law, yet the same can be taken into consideration while deciding bail applications, therefore, by keeping in view the contents of FIR and the outcome of investigation, prima facie the case of prosecution to the extent of petitioner has become a case of two versions i.e. one put forward by the complainant and the other came on record during investigation and which version is correct shall be determined by the learned trial court after recording evidence. Reliance can easily be placed upon 2012 SCMR 1137 (Ehsan Ullah v. The State). During investigation, nothing was recovered from the present petitioner. As far as question of sharing common intention for the murder of deceased Fatima Bibi with his co-accused is concerned, the same shall be decided by the learned trial court after recording evidence. Admittedly, the petitioner is previous non-convict. It is settled law that mere heinousness of offence is no ground to refuse bail to an accused who otherwise becomes entitled to the concession of bail. He is behind the bars since 24.08.2017. Investigation of the case is complete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation. 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 bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand only) with two sureties each 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. JK/M-34/L Bail granted.