2007 PLP 3071 (YLR)

ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.

Through this petition Khalid Mehmood petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.341 registered at Police Station Saddar Pasroor, District Sialkot on 22-10-2005 in respect of an offence under section 302, P.P.C. read with section 34, P.P.C.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed by me that according to the F.I.R. the petitioner was not present at the scene of the crime at the relevant time and, thus, he does not stand saddled 'with the responsibility of causing any injury to deceased or administering poison to the deceased himself. According to the F.I.R. the petitioner had provided behind the scene abetment to his co-accused but in the F.I.R. no motive had been set up by the prosecution as to why the petitioner would be interested in killing the deceased. After about eighteen days of the registration of the F.I.R. three eye-witnesses had come forward and they had got their statements recorded by the, Investigating Officer on 9-11-2005 wherein they had maintained that they had seen the petitioner near the place of occurrence issuing directions to his co-accused as to how the deceased was to be dealt with. It is pertinent to mention' here that so far the actual persons who had allegedly administered poison to the deceased have not been nominated or arrested. It is also relevant to mention here that according to the prosecution the co-culprits of the petitioner had administered poison to the: deceased but the report of the Chemical Examiner regarding the viscera and the other parts of the dead body shows that no poison had been detected in the deceased's dead body. As a matter of fact the doctor conducting the post-mortem examination had never specified any cause of death of the accused. It is, thus, prima B facie not clear as to whether the deceased had died an unnatural death or his death was natural. The above mentioned eye-witnesses being relied upon by the prosecution had surfaced in this case after eighteen days of the alleged occurrence and apparently there is no explanation available on the record so far as to why they had kept mum for so long. The learned counsel for the State has confirmed the fact that so far no record has been obtained from the Telephone Department so as to confirm the allegation that the petitioner had made some telephone calls to the deceased. The dead body of the deceased did not carry any mark of violence on any part. During the investigation the petitioner had been found to be innocent and at one stage he had been recommended for discharge. The petitioner happens to be a public servant and, thus, there is little likelihood of his abscission in case of admission to bail.

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 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 Court.

4. Before parting with this order it may be clarified that the observations made in the present order shall always be treated as tentative in nature and the same shall not prejudice the investigating agency or the learned trial Court in any manner. N.H.Q./K-7/L Bail allowed.