2017 PLP 87 (YLRN)

ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.

Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. Mehr Khan petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No. 14/15, dated 25.01.2015 registered at Police Station Harnoli, Mianwali in respect of offences under sections 302/109/34, P.P.C.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of this case with their able assistance. It has been noticed by this Court that there is a delay of one day in registration of the FIR which has not been explained by the complainant, so prima facie it seems that the FIR has been lodged by the complainant after due deliberations and consultations. Admittedly the instant occurrence has not seen by anybody and that is why the petitioner is not named in the FIR but he has been involved in this case through a supplementary statement got recorded by the complainant on 25.01.2015 wherein no source of information has been mentioned by the complainant as to how he had come to know about involvement of the petitioner in this case, rather only suspicion regarding involvement of the petitioner in the commission of murder of Muhammad Mehrban deceased has been expressed by him. Law is quite settled on the point that the supplementary statement without source has got no value in the eyes of law. Reliance can he placed on the cases of Naeem Akhtar v. The State (1996 SCMR 511) and Abid Ali alias Ali v. The State (2011 SCMR 161). Similarly it is also settled proposition of law that suspicion howsoever grave or strong can never be a substitute of proper evidence required in a criminal case. The only evidence collected by the investigating officer against the petitioner is that during investigation he led to recovery of pistol but according to the report of Forensic Science Laboratory the empty-collected from the spot has not matched with pistol allegedly recovered from the petitioner. So in this eventuality the recovery allegedly effected from the petitioner is inconsequential. Even otherwise the worth and evidentiary value of the recovery would be determined by the learned trial court after recording evidence in this case. Learned counsel for the complainant has vociferously argued that during investigation of this case it has come on record that it was the petitioner who has made fatal fire-shots at the deceased at the spot. I, however, remained unable to appreciate this contention raised by learned counsel for the complainant because law is quite settled on the point that ipse dixit of police is not binding on the courts of law. Heinousness of an offence is no ground to refuse bail to an accused who otherwise becomes entitled for the concession of post-arrest bail. The petitioner is previous non-convict, he is behind the bars since 25.02.2015, the investigation of this case qua the petitioner is complete, report under section 173, Cr.P.C. has already been submitted before the learned trial Court, he is no more required for the purpose of further investigation, therefore, his continuous incarceration in jail for an indefinite period would not serve any beneficial purpose at this stage. It is settled law that a person cannot be detained in jail for an indefinite period especially when conclusion of his trial is not in sight.

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) or section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond 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. WA/M-181/L Bail granted.