2004 PLP 137 (YLR)

Malik Saeed Ijaz for Petitioner. Zafar Iqbal Awan for the Complainant. Raja Aftab Hussain for the State. Muhammad Akram, petitioner has applied for bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.143 of 2003, registered with Police Station, Musafar Khana, Bahawalpur under sections 302/109/34, P.P.C. The bail application moved by the petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur was not granted approval, therefore, this application has been filed by the petitioner, in this Court.

2. In the aforesaid F.I.R. Muhammad Amjad and Nasir Mehmood were accused of having caused the murder of Muhammad Rafique, uncle I of the complainant, near his house. It was stated in the F.I.R. that at the behest of Abdul Majeed, Muhammad Asghar and Muhammad Akram (petitioner), uncle of the informant was murdered.

3. Arguments heard. Record perused.

4. The allegation against the petitioner is that at his behest, the accused who were nominated in the F.I.R. had committed the murder of Muhammad Rafique, victim. The F.I.R. is silent as to why this alleged command was made to the accused by the petitioner and what was the, enmity, which led him to direct the accused to commit this heinous offence. There is no nexus to prove the motive behind the alleged command/direction having: been allegedly given by the petitioner. To rope in the innocent persons, is a very easy job but to prove such allegation is a difficult one. Mere allegation of direction without any prima facie substantive, cogent and well founded evidence, would not be sufficient to keep any person, who was declared innocent by the police, behind the bars indefinitely. Not only the Inspector/S.H.O. yet the S.D.P.O. had investigated the case and had found the petitioner innocent. It is correct that ipsi dixit of the police‑is not binding upon this Court yet it has got some weight to be considered at the time of grant or refusal of the bail. In Shaukat Ali alias Madha v. The State 2003 PCr.LJ 1240 and in Muhammad Rafique v. The State 1996 PCr.LJ 1745, the opinion of the police was given the weight. In Manzoor Ahmad and others v. The State 1997 PCr.LJ 850 the accused was confirmed pre‑arrest interim bail when there were reasonable grounds with regard to the innocence of the accused charged with abetment under section 109 or P.P.C. In Muhammad Sadiq v. The State 1996 SCMR 1654 the accused was although present at the scene of occurrence and had raised Lalkara yet was granted bail. In the instant case, the accused was arrested on 24‑7‑2003 and is in the judicial lock‑up since then. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the accused in detention, therefore, the petitioner is granted bail after arrest in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur. H.B.T./M‑2361/L Bail granted.