2007 PLP 1405 (YLR)

IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHARY, J.

Through this application under section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No.241 of 2005, dated 2-7-2005, registered under sections 302, 364, 201, 109 and 148/149, P.P.C. at Police Station Mananwala, Sheikhupura on the statement of Mst. Anwar Bibi, the complainant.

2. The brief allegations as alleged in the F.I.R. are that on 30-6-2005 at about 8-00 a.m. the complainant along with her husband Asghar Ali and other relatives was going to their village and when they reached about 3/4 furlongs away from the village, they saw two white cars in which accused Fakhar Ahmad and Imtiaz Ahmad while armed with pistols .30 bore, Shabbir Ahmad and Arif armed with guns .7 mm, Mumtaz Ahmad armed with pump action and Ashiq armed with .8mm along with three unknown persons were also present and amongst them, one Mumtaz Ahmad raised a Lalkara that Asghar Ali and Anwar Ali be apprehended. The accused party sharply caught hold of her husband and abducted him while boarding in a white coloured car bearing Registration No.GAJ-3097, for the purpose to murder him. The occurrence was witnessed by Anwar Ali and Muhammad Akram P.Ws. The motive behind the occurrence was that 5 years ago Razzaq, son of complainant was murdered by Mumtaz Ahmad accused and 5/6 days earlier to the present occurrence Sardar, father of said Mumtaz Ahmad was also murdered and the allegation was levelled that Sardar was murdered by her son Aftab alias Bagga and on the basis of such enmity, her husband was abducted for the purpose to murder him, on the abetment of Muhammad Rafique.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the occurrence had allegedly taken place on 30-6-2005 at about 8-00 a.m. and F.I.R. was got lodged with the delay of 2 days on 2-7-2005 at 11-30 a.m. without any explanation. It is also contended that the petitioner had no enmity with the complainant party while co-accused of the petitioner Imtiaz Ahmad has enmity with the complainant party and the petitioner and his uncle Arif have been involved on the ground that deceased Asghar Ali was murdered in the garden of said Arif, but during the course of investigation, it has been found that the petitioner and Arif had not participated in the occurrence of murdering of the deceased. It is also contended that Fakhar Ahmad, present petitioner is alleged to have committed offence under section 201, P.P.C. which is punishable with 7 years imprisonment only and he had not participated in the alleged main occurrence of abduction and murder.

4. The learned State counsel opposes this bail petition on the ground that the petitioner has committed heinous offence and pistol has been recovered from his possession and that offence falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

5. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended the police did not finalize the matter properly with cogent reasons, therefore, the same should not be considered for the purpose of grant of bail at this stage. It is further contended that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. with specific role and prima facie offence under section 302, P.P.C. is made out against the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for the grant of bail.

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

7. Though the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. as one of the accused, who had participated in the occurrence of abduction along with other accused yet he was declared innocent by the police and perusal of police report shows that there is nothing on record regarding participation of the present petitioner in the commission of murder of Asghar deceased and missing his dead body. According to the police opinion, the present. petitioner was only accompanying the accused party but he is not guilty of the murder of the deceased. The finding of the police is based on the statements of witnesses of the locality, who have joined the investigation before the first Investigating Officer and second TO. According to the statements of witnesses, the petitioner had not participated in the main occurrence of murder. Though the finding of the police is not binding upon the Courts, yet it can be considered at bail stage according to the facts and circumstances of the case as the petitioner had no previous ill-will against the complainant party. The challan has been sent up in the Court of competent jurisdiction. According to the police report, the present petitioner is only accused under section 201, P.P.C., which is punishable with 7 years' imprisonment. Even otherwise, role under sections 302 and 364, P.P.C. has been attributed to the other accused-persons, who are in jail and further detention of present petitioner in jail, will not serve any useful purpose for the prosecution.

8. In the above circumstances, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnished bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./F-7/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.