1993 P Cr (PLP)

Ch. Liaquat Ali Sandhu for Petitioner. Mian Ata-ur-Rehman for the Complainant. Abdul Khaliq Khan for the State. Date of hearing: 17th February, 1992. The petitioner, alongwith two others, is accused of offences under section 302/34, Qisas and Diyat Ordinance, vide F.I.R. No.48, dated 25-2-1991, registered at Police Station, Sadar Hafizabad, District Gujranwala.

2. According to the F.I.R. in brief, the deceased Sajjad Akram was last seen with the co-accused of the petitioner. It is further alleged therein that, in the first instance, the petitioner had come to the house of the deceased and taken him away with him, and that, thereafter, the dead body was recovered from the fields and the petitioner, alongwith his co-accused, was arrested for having committed the said Sajjad Akram's murder.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended for his bail and submitted that the case is false. Further submitted that the last seen evidence without corroboration does not make out a case as alleged against the petitioner. Further submitted that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner to link him with the crime alleged. Further submitted that, in any case, the petitioner has been declared innocent by the police. Further submitted that the petitioner has been in the lock-up for the last more than ten months and that he is no longer required by the police, and that he is neither a previous convict nor hardened criminal.

4. The learned counsel for the State opposed the present bail petition and submitted that the case is being re-investigated by an A.S.P. The learned counsel for the complainant, appearing in the case, with the permission of the Court, vehemently opposed the bail petition and submitted that the petitioner is accused of a crime punishable with death, and as such, he is not entitled to bail. Further submitted that as the re-investigation of the case is taking place, therefore, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the earlier investigation in which he has been declared innocent. Further submitted that the last seen evidence by itself makes out a case against the petitioner that falls with the prohibitory clause. To support his contentions, placed reliance upon 1982 P Cr. L J 2377 and Mst. Rashid Begum v. Abdul Rashid and others 1990 S C M R

579. In the said precedents, the accused against whom the evidence of last seen was on the record in respect of the it under were denied bail by the Habourable High Court and the Honourable Supreme Court, respectively. However, the learned counsel for the complainant was forced to concede that in the cases referred to above, the accused had not been declared innocent during the investigation by the police.

5. In view of what has been stated above, and as it has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court in Manzoor and 4 others v The State P L D 1972 SC 81 and Amir v. The State P L D 1972 SC 277 that neither the law should be stretched in favour of the prosecution nor any doubt arising in respect of the cases against the petitioner should be denied to the accused at the bail stage, therefore, the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Gujranwala. N.H.Q./Z-68/L Bail granted.