2010 PLP 999 (YLR)

HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.

Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner Muhammad Akhtar son of Muhammad Hussain seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.353/08 dated 18-9-2008 registered under section 302/34, 109, P.P.C. with Police Station Saddar Jalalpur 'Pirwala, District Multan.

2. Earlier bail application of the petitioner and his co-accused Muhammad Arshad was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge Jalalpur Pirwala on 15-7-2009.

3. The aforesaid F.I.R. was lodged against unknown persons for committing murder of Allah Ditta. The petitioner was later on implicated in this case through supplementary statement of the complainant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant got recorded her statement on 20-9-2008 in which she only implicated the petitioner to the extent that at his instigation Mst. Tasleem Bibi killed Allah Ditta (deceased); petitioner was arrested on 14-10-2008 and was sent to judicial lock up; petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than one year; charge has been framed on 30-3-2009; and the prosecution itself has withheld the trial to submit challan against another co-accused, Muhammad Arrshad. It is further argued that according to the report of the learned trial Court after submission of challan another supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded to implicate Muhammad Arshad co-accused of the petitioner for which the supplementary challan is awaited. Learned counsel submits that the contents of the F.I.R. recorded on 20-9-2008 and the subsequent supplementary statement recorded after submission of challan on 15-11-2009 are different which make the case of petitioner of further inquiry. In the challan submitted before the learned trial Court there is no substantive material to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, submits that the complainant lady was present at the place of occurrence and she on the first day took the stand that these are my accused who murdered Allah Ditta. Learned counsel places reliance on "Muhammad Arshad v. The State" 2006 SCMR 96, "Allah Bachaya and 3 others v. The State" 2001 PCr.LJ 1082, "Hadayat Ali v. Muhammad Shahbaz" 2002 MLD 83, "Muhammad Jahangir v. The State" 2002 PCr.LJ 1039 and "Muhammad Farooq v. The State" 2005 MLD 975.

6. Learned DDPP has vehemently contested the bail petition by submitting that the petitioner has been found guilty in the investigation; that challan has been submitted before the Court in which charge has been framed and the case is now fixed for prosecution evidence.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. Initially the case was got registered against unknown persons for the murder of Allah Ditta but later on the petitioner was implicated through supplementary statement which has little evidentiary value. Normally through supplementary statement accused are implicated as an afterthought. The stance of the complainant taken in the supplementary statement and in other statement which was recorded by her after submission of the challan makes the case of petitioner of further inquiry as in the subsequent supplementary statement only allegation against the petitioner is that at his instigation Allah Ditta was murdered, therefore, involvement of the petitioner in the commission of murder of Allah Ditta becomes doubtful. The benefit of doubt should go to the accused even at bail stage, as only allegation of instigation is attributed to the petitioner. In the beginning F.I.R. got lodged against 3/4 unknown persons. The complainant already known to petitioner, if she was present on site she should have definitely named the petitioner in the F.I.R.

9. In the light of above discussion the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing basil bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000 (two lacs) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. N.H.Q./M-54/L Bail allowed.