2013 PLP 2230 (YLR)

SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.

Muhammad Altaf (petitioner) seeks bail-after-arrest in case F.I.R. No.2 of 2012, dated 1-1-2012, registered for offences under sections 302, 148, 149, P.P.C., at police station Badiana, District Sialkot.

2. The prosecution story as set-up in the F.I.R. by Muhammad Maalik (complainant) is that his brother Muhammad Waris went to village Baqir pur on 30-12-2011 and did not return till evening; he, being worried enquired from the said village and learnt that his brother was taken from village Baqirpur on a motorcycle by his paternal nephew Zafar Iqbal; he returned to his house after queries but his brother did not come back; it was at about 10-00 a.m. on 1-1-2012, when he received a phone-call as to lying of a dead-body in the fields, situated between revenue limits of villages Kot Kalan and Lawarey; on receipt of this information he along with Muhammad Yaseen and Matloob Hussain reached the spot and identified the dead body as that of his missed-brother; he burdened his nephew Zafar Iqbal with the liability of murder of his brother Muhammad Waris.

3. The complainant recorded a supplementary statement on 2-1-2012 with the assertion that his brother was murdered by his paternal nephew Zafar Iqbal and three others namely Yaseen, Arfan and Kashif, being in-league with each other and they also sprinkled acid over the dead body.

4. The Investigating Officer recorded second supplementary statement of the complainant on 21-1-2012, whereby, he contended that Altaf alias Tafo accused/ petitioner was equally responsible for the murder of his brother.

5. The complainant rendered yet another statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. on 15-2-2012, whereby he added the name of Ghulam Murtaza to the list of the accused by asserting that Ghulam Murtaza accused had admitted his guilt before Muhammad Nawaz and Munawar Hussain with the contention that he along with his co-accused murdered Waris (deceased).

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a case of no evidence against the petitioner and he has been languishing in jail for none of his fault; the Investigating Officer failed to collect any evidence against the accused/ petitioner and he challaned him gratuitously.

7. On the other hand, learned Additional Prosecutor-General Punjab assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioner is equally responsible for the murder of Waris deceased and complainant burdened him with the said liability in unequivocal terms; the petitioner absconded after the occurrence and he was proceeded against under section 87, Cr.P.C. on 8-3-2012; a co-accused of the petitioner, Yaseen alias Tara has been denied bail-after-arrest by this Court vide order dated 11-5-2012, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that details of the occurrence are hair-raising and sensational as, Muhammad Waris was done to death in a brutal manner. It, however, does not mean that mere heinousness of offence may be permitted to permeate and over weigh the bail-plea of the petitioner, especially when, no incriminating evidence of any sort has been brought on record by the Investigating Officer, during the course of investigation. It is a sorrowful aspect of the prosecution case that the Investigating Officer took no rigors at all to collect incriminatory material against the petitioner except for recording second supplementary statement of the complainant on 21-1-2012 and statement of Gulzar Ahmad constable on 25-3-2012 regarding issuance of proclamation against Zafar Iqbal, Ghulam Murtaza, Kashif and Altaf (petitioner). Not a single witness has been produced by the complainant during investigation to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence alleged. The profile of this case required that it should have been investigated by a competent investigating officer, well-versed with the technique and process of investigating such like cases. He should have been a knowledgeable person, possessing all the know how as to the niceties involved in such like situations. The dexterity, acumen, commonsense, prudence and uprightness must have been the hallmark of the character of such an investigating officer. It is sorrowfully noted that the investigating officer of this case has not shown any of the qualities, mentioned above and dealt with the matter in a mindless and un impressive manner which left many aspects of the case, plunged in the darkness.

9. The case of Yaseen alias Tara accused is easily distinguishable from the case of the petitioner, as Investigating Officer collected certain pieces of incriminating evidence against him, including the last seen evidence and recovery of certain crime articles at his instance, hence, outcome of his bail application (Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4546-B/2012) hardly affects the case of the petitioner. The bail declining order in respect of Yaseen accused causes no inroads into the case of the petitioner.

10. Muhammad Arfan, a co-accused of the petitioner, whose role looks much graver than that of the petitioner has been granted bail vide order dated 29-2-2012 by the learned trial court, which order is still intact. The petitioner underwent physical remand for 14 days but this period of time remained unproductive. Prima facie, there exist sufficient reasons to believe that the petitioner's case calls for further probe into his guilt as contemplated under section 497(2), Cr.P.C., hence, factum of abscondence poses no threat to the plea of the accused for bail.

11. Resultantly, I accept this application and admit the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. MWA/M-104/L Bail granted.