2008 P Cr (PLP)

IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.

Through this application under section 497, Cr.P.C. Muhammad Tariq, petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No.333-2006, dated 10-7-2006 registered under section 324/34, P.P.C. and under section 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, VII of 1979 at Police Station Saddar, District Gujranwala on the application of Inayatullah, the complainant.

2. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the F.I.R. are that on 12-6-2006 at about 10-00 a.m. Muhammad Saleem son of Muhammad Azam with the assistance of (his wife) Mst. Shahida Bibi had abducted Mst. Manazza aged about 18-19 years (daughter of the complainant) after enticement with intention to sell her out and they detained her at some unknown place. The case was registered initially under section 11/7/79, H.O. but subsequently, the dead body of Mst. Manazza was recovered and offence under section 302/34, P.P.C. has been added.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended Mst. Manazza daughter of the complainant was allegedly abducted by his daughter Mst. Shahida and his son-in-law Muhammad Saleem, but subsequently the petitioner was involved in the present case in order to save the real culprits; that the dead body of the alleged abductee was recovered from the Canal on 16-7-2006 and the petitioner was arrested on 24-7-2006 on the supplementary statement made by the complainant on 16-7-2006, in which he suspected that the petitioner was also involved in the abduction of said Mst. Manazza and section 302, P.P.C. has been added; that except the supplementary statement, no other evidence has been collected to prima facie connect the petitioner with the commission of crime and it is a case of no evidence; that the petitioner was declared innocent by the local police vide Zimni No.16, dated 10-8-2006 and the D.S.P. also had verified the said investigation, vide Zimni No.17, dated 19-8-2006 and put the petitioner at the mercy of Court.

4. The learned Law Officer has opposed this bail petition on the ground that the petitioner was nominated in the supplementary statement made by the complainant and during the investigation, statement of owner of P.C.O. has also been recorded which shows that the daughter of the complainant (deceased) used to call the petitioner on telephone; that some articles belonging to the deceased were also recovered from the petitioner and co-accused; which show their inter se connection; that the complainant had no enmity to falsely implicate the petitioner in the present case and that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and the petitioner is not entitled to bail.

5. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with due care and caution.

6. The name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the F.I.R. and it is admitted fact that Muhammad Saleem and his wife Mst. Shahida were on-in-law and daughter of the complainant who were initially involved in the present case for her abduction, but this fact has not been given by the complainant in the supplementary statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. made on 16-7-2006 when the dead body was recovered, the complainant had only shown suspicion against the petitioner and his co-accused for the murder of the deceased. The post-mortem examination had been conducted and the Doctor opined that the cause of death was asphyxia due to drowning. Then according to the report of Chemical Examiner, no poisoning was detected in the viscera of the deceased sent by the doctor for analysis. For the time being, except the suspicion of the complainant there is no other incriminating evidence on the record to prima facie connect the petitioner with the commission of crime. The petitioner was arrested, but nothing has been recovered from the petitioner during the investigation and he has also been declared innocent by the police. Though the finding of the police is not binding upon the Courts yet in the present case the opinion of the police is found to be based on sound reason and supported by the facts and circumstances of the case, which can be relied upon for the grant of bail. After perusal of the police file, I find no incriminating evidence against the petitioner to believe that he is connected with the murder of the deceased or her abduction. The petitioner cannot be detained in jail for indefinite period. Merely on the suspicion of the complainant who even otherwise has succeeded in making out a case of further inquiry and covered by-section 497(2), Cr.P.C. and bail cannot be withheld merely as a punishment. For the foregoing reasons, the instant bail petition is accepted and Muhammad Tariq the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs:1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./M-452/L Bail granted.