2004 PLP 2034 (YLR)

Tariq Zulfiqar Ahmad Chaudhry for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Jamil for the State. Date of hearing: 2nd October, 2003. This is a petition for grant of post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.19, dated 1‑2‑2003 registered under sections 302/34/393/397, P.P.C. at Police Station Kundai, District Muzaffargarh.

2. According to the version as narrated in the F.I.R. that on 31‑1‑2003 complainant alongwith his brother Sakhi Bakhsh was present near the Western Bank Bridge of Canal where three unknown persons armed with fire‑arms appeared and demanded that whatsoever was in their possession be handed over to them. On the refusal hot words were exchanged. The person armed with .12 bore gun fired at the brother of the complainant hitting on right side of body of the brother of the complainant. The second accused who was also armed with rifle fired at the brother of the complainant who fell down on the ground and died. Thereafter all the three accused went away with their respective weapons on coming of the witnesses.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strongly argued that the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. that later on he was named on the basis of supplementary statement made on 1‑2‑2003. Further submits that Sota has been recovered from the petitioner; that he was arrested on 10‑3‑2003 and since then he is behind the bars; that complainant himself has stated in his supplementary statement that Abdul Ghafoor was armed with Sota while in the F.I.R. he stated that he was armed with Klashnikov so that the case should be tried by Special Court for Suppression of Terrorist Activities and asked for correction of the same while appearing before the Investigating Officer; that the F.I.R. has been lodged with an unexplained delay of 24 hours; that petitioner is a previous non convict.

4. Conversely the learned counsel for the State has strongly opposed the bail petition and submits that due to non appearance and no availability of the P.Ws. the case has 'been adjourned sine die and that petitioner alongwith his co‑accused has committed heinous offence, therefore, petitioner is not entitled for the grant of bail.

5. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. Even according to the F.I.R. as well as supplementary statement no role has been attributed to the petitioner and petitioner is a previous non‑convict. He is behind the bars since his arrest 10‑3‑2003 and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in Jail for an indefinite period. Case against the petitioner and his co accused has been adjourned sine die due to non‑availability of eye‑witnesses. As the eye‑witnesses of this case are reported to be involved in some other criminal case and they have been declared proclaimed offender by the police and they are not traceable till this time, therefore, main murder case file has been sine die consigned by the Court. Keeping in view the fact that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and is named through the supplementary statement and also in view of the statement of the complainant before the Investigating Officer wherein he has stated that petitioner was not armed with fire‑arm but was armed with Sota and only introduced Klashnikov so that the case may be tried by Special Judge Anti‑Terrorism and the complainant' himself requested that correction be made to this effect makes the case against the petitioner is that of further inquiry. Also conclusion of the trial is not in sight, as already the witnesses are not traceable and the case stands adjourned sine die. In this view of the matter, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in Jail for an indefinite period. I accept this petition and petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rupees one lac with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. H.B.T./A‑88/L Bail granted.