2002 PLP 690 (MLD)

Allah Ditta v. The State 1977 SCMR 251 and Muhammad Rafique v. The State 1977 SCMR 457 ref. Tariq Murtaza Khan Malezai for Petitioner. Zawar Hussain Qureshi for the State. Date of hearing: 16th January, 2002. Through this petition Ghiyas petitioner has sought post‑arrest bail in case F. I. R. No. 183 registered at Police Station Saddar, Arifwala, District, Pakpattan Sharif on 17‑4‑2000 for offences under sections 302/364/365/148/149/201, P.P.C.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that the F.I.R. in this case had been lodged with a delay of 24/25 days and it has been mentioned in the F.I.R. that Muhammad Imran deceased had been seen standing with the present petitioner outside the house of the petitioner's father namely Faqir Muhammad before the deceased's disappearance. It has further been noticed that in the F.I. R. the complainant had expressed a suspicion only against the petitioner's co‑accused and not against the petitioner himself. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner's co accused namely Muhammad Ashraf, Faqir Muhammad and Riaz Ahmed Fauji have already been admitted to post‑arrest bail by this Court vide order, dated 14‑11‑2000 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.2589‑B of 2000 and order, dated 6‑12‑2000 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.2537‑B of 2000. The only distinguishing feature of the petitioner's case from that of his abovementioned co‑accused highlighted by the learned counsel for the State has been that allegedly a bicycle of the deceased had been recovered during the investigation of this case upon pointing out of the present petitioner. However, in this connection the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently maintained that there is no memo. of identification of the said bicycle available on, the record or investigation and, therefore, it cannot be presumed at this stage that the bicycle allege4ly recovered at the pointing out of the present petitioner was in fact a bicycle of the deceased and not of anybody else. In this regard the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the case of Allah Ditta v. The State (1977 SCMR 251) and Muhammaa Rafique v. The State (1977 SCMR 457). It has also been noticed by this Court that the present petitioner has already spent about one year anu eight months in jail in connection with this case. The challan in this case has already been submitted after completion of investigation and, thus. continued custody of the petitioner is no longer required for the purposes of investigation.

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 petition is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial H.B.T./445/P Bail granted.