2008 PLP 70 (MLD)

KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was not named in the F.I.R.; that he was named in the supplementary statement made by the complainant 15 minutes after lodging the FIR., wherein he has mentioned only one accused i.e. Rizwan; then again the complainant appeared before the police on 6-3-2007 and stated that his brother-in-law Muhammad Amjad was murdered only by the present petitioner and not two unknown persons as mentioned in the F.I.R. and the other person was a passerby; that supplementary statement was written immediately after 15 minutes of lodging of F.I.R. then this fact that it was Rizwan who had murdered the deceased should have been mentioned in the brief facts of the inquest report; that recovery of pistol has been effected; and that case of the present petitioner falls within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, he is entitled to bail.

2. On the other hand, learned DPG assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that as the complainant after seeing dead-body of his brother-in-law became perplexed so he could not mention the name of the accused and after 15 minutes he has mentioned the name of present petitioner; that on 6-3-2007 he also stated before the police that it was only Rizwan, who had murdered the deceased; that the petitioner was arrested on 1-3-2007 and recovery of pistol has been effected at his instance on 4-3-2007; that four crime empties C-1 to C-4 were collected from the spot, which matched with the recovered pistol; and that offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C., therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to bail.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the record. The complainant claims himself to be an eye-witness of this case along with other witnesses. In the F.I.R. two unknown accused were mentioned and both of them have been attributed one injury each. In the supplementary statement recorded 15 minutes after lodging of F.I.R. although he has mentioned another co-accused but he names only Rizwan without any source of information. On 6-3-2007 the complainant again appeared before Mushtaq Ahmad, S.-I./I.O. and stated that after thorough checking/inquiry he has come to the conclusion that there was no other accused except Rizwan-petitioner and no one was accompanying him. Now it is a case of three versions. At this stage, learned counsel for the complainant submits that charge has been framed and the case is fixed for evidence.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, going through the first information report and two statements made by the complainant, without commenting upon the recovery of pistol and matching of four crime empties with the said pistol which may prejudice the case of either party, I am of the opinion that case of the petitioner is one of further inquiry and attracts the provisions of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Thus, while relying upon the cases of Manzoor and 4 others v. The State (PLD 1972 SC 81), Amir v. The State (PLD 1972 SC 277) and Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34) this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail, subject to his furnishing bail, bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees One Lac) with one surety, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Dy. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. N.H.Q./M-521/L Bail allowed.