2007 PLP 397 (YLR)

SYED SAJJAD HUSSAIN SHAH, J.

Petitioner Noor Muhammad alias Noori through the instant petition has sought post-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No.52 of 2006 under section 302/34, P.P.C. registered with Police Station, Sadar Kamoke, District Gujranwala.

2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. is that on 4-2-2006 at about 1-15 p.m. complainant along with his nephew Ghulam Mustafa and one Nazir Ahmad was present at his agricultural land situated in Tibba Muhammad Nagar when four unknown persons armed with deadly weapons while riding on two motorcycles came there. One remained on the motorcycle whereas remaining three made straight burst upon Ghulam Mustafa hitting on different parts of his body who succumbed to his injuries at the spot.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel .for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case through a supplementary statement as he was not nominated accused in the F.I.R.; the petitioner has been declared innocent during three successive investigations; no recovery has been effected from him; the supplementary statements of the P.Ws. recorded with a delay of 74 days after the occurrence, make the case of the petitioner doubtful; the P.Ws. are interested and inimical towards the petitioner, it is a case of further inquiry, he is behind the bars and no more required for further investigation.

4. Conversely learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the instant petition.

5. I have heard the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner was previously known to the complainant as well as to the P.Ws. and there was litigation in between the parties. In this background too, the petitioner was not nominated in the F.I.R. who was implicated through supplementary statement allegedly made by the complainant on the same very day but the statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. of other eye-witnesses were recorded after the supplementary statement of the complainant but both the eye-witnesses had not nominated the present petitioner in their statements. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State confirms that there was no reference of supplementary statement of the complainant in a case diary written by the D.S.P. on the same day. The other P.Ws. nominated the petitioner through supplementary statement which they got recorded after 74 days of the occurrence and there is no explanation on the record regarding the delay. The petitioner on having the knowledge of his implication immediately approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge for his pre-arrest bail which was subsequently withdrawn on the statement of the Investigating Officer who was conducting investigation at that time. The petitioner was arrested on 9th of June, 2006. He has been found innocent during investigations. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from his possession. There is no material with the prosecution except supplementary statement of the complainant and that of P.Ws. which were recorded at a belated stage. There are reasons to believe that the petitioner has not committed the offence for which he is being charged, therefore, the case of the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt. He is behind the bars and no more required for further investigation. To keep him behind the bars for an indefinite period would not serve any useful purpose.

7. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lac) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Judge. H.B.T./N-124/L Bail granted.