2008 P Cr (PLP)

KHURSHID ANWAR BHINDER, J.

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners does not press this petition to the extent of Ghulam Abbas and Mukhtar Ahmad, petitioners Nos.2 and 3 and presses this petition only to the extent of Nazar Hussain petitioner No.1. This petition is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed to the extent of Ghulam Abbas and Mukhtar Ahmad, petitioners Nos.2 and 3.

2. Through the present petition, Nazar Hussain, petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.155, dated 30-4-2007, registered under sections 364/109/302, P.P.C. at Police Station Zahirpir Khanpur.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 25-4-2007, Mukhtar, Ghulam Abbas and Fayyaz Ahmad had taken away Gulfaz deceased to the river side and had committed his murder. It was also alleged in the F.I.R. that the occurrence took place at the behest of the present petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no direct evidence of abetment of the offence by the present petitioner. He further maintains that no incriminating material was recovered from the petitioner. It will be seen at the time of trial on the basis of the evidence as to who had committed the murder of the deceased Gulfaz. For the time being the matter is absolutely oblivious. It is, therefore, a case of further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant, while opposing the bail application, submits that the main motive is attributed to the present petitioner and he has specifically referred to the latter part of the narration of the F.I.R. in which the cause of motive is established. He further submits that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. Shabbir and Fazal had stated before the police that it is the petitioner who had abetted the offence and the deceased was murdered at his behest.

6. Learned D. D. P. P. has also opposed the bail application by maintaining that the motive is attributed to the petitioner. Shabbir and Fazal P.Ws. had also stated before the police that they had seen Ghulam Abbas, Fayyaz Ahmad and Mukhtar taking away the deceased Gulfaz towards the river. He further submits that the offence of abduction under section 364, P.P.C. falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. He further submits that the trial has commenced and in such a situation particularly when the case is at evidence stage, the bail should not be granted.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned D.D.P.P. for the State as well as the learned counsel for the complainant and have perused the record. There is no denying the fact that petitioner has been attributed role of abetment of the offence but I am afraid there is no eye-witness account of the commission of this offence. Merely relying on the statements of P.Ws. that they had seen the accused going with the deceased does not necessarily mean that the petitioner would have asked them to take him away for the purpose of committing murder. Moreover, the fact that the petitioner has abetted the offence does not necessarily implicate him directly for the reason that there is no direct evidence. It will be seen at the time of trial on the basis of evidence whether the offence was committed at the behest of the present petitioner or not. Since the entire matter is in oblivion, therefore, it is a case of further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner.

8. In view of what has been discussed above, I admit the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Criminal Miscellaneous stands disposed of. N.H.Q./N-2/L Bail allowed.