2008 PLP 946 (MLD)

HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.

Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.311 of 2006, dated 2-5-2006 registered at Police Station Gujjar Pura, Lahore, in respect of offences under sections 302/ 170/171/109/148/149, P.P.C.

2. Succinctly the prosecution story as narrated in the F.I.R. lodged on the written application of Muhammad Javaid, complainant is that on 1-5-2006 at 10-00 p.m. the complainant along with others was sitting in his dera when a Mazda Van Hilux and two 125/CC Motorcycles came there. Six persons in police uniform were present in the said van. They introduced themselves as members of C.I.A. staff and inquired about Shaukat and Sabir whereupon Sabir and Mansha (slain) introduced themselves to the said accused persons who claimed that they had to arrest them (Sabir and Mansha) in connection with a criminal case. The aforementioned incognit\accused handcuffed Sabir and Mansha and bundled them into the van, during the said process Sabir and Mansha deceased raised hue and cry and told the complainant that van was occupied by their enemies and the men in uniform, in fact, were not police personnel. On hearing this, the complainant along with others allegedly chased the said van. After covering a distance of about one kilometer Sabir and Mansha were statedly thrown out of the Van and the accused persons shot them (Sabir and Mansha) dead. The motivating factor behind the occurrence was stated to be a chain of criminal litigation between the parties.

3. In support of this petition learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is delay of about 9-1/2 hours in lodging the F.I.R., that the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R.; that the petitioner was involved in the case through a supplementary statement which was made after a long and considerable period; that no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner and that Muhammad Arshad, co-accused of the petitioner, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order, dated 27-9-2006 passed on Criminal Miscellaneous No. 6320-B of 2006, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to bail on the basis of rule of consistency.

4. Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General has opposed the bail application contending that the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner falls within the prohibitory clause; that recovery of a rifle and a police uniform had been effected from the petitioner and that during the investigation the petitioner was found guilty.

5. After hearing the arguments put forth by the respective learned counsel for the parties I have straightaway noticed that F.I.R. in this case had been lodged with a noticeably delay. I have further gathered that the occurrence in this case had taken place during a night and petitioner was not nominated in the F.I.R. rather he was implicated in this case through a supplementary statement of the complainant which was recorded on 1-72007 i.e. after about one year and two months of the occurrence. According to complainant, the information regarding the involvement of the petitioner and five other co-accused in this case was provided to him (complainant) by two P.Ws. namely Mian Majeed and Hafeez who claimed that they had identified the petitioner and his co-accused who had been in the police uniform at the time of occurrence but according to the said witnesses they kept mum for a period of more than one year out of fear of accused. Neither the complainant nor the said witnesses did attribute any specific role to the petitioner. Be that as it may, the credibility of the said witnesses would be needing further probe. Moreover, speaking tentatively, in the circumstances of the case holding of identification parade was necessary but the Investigating Officer of this case did not deem holding of such a parade necessary. The evidentiary value of the alleged recovery of rifle from a jungle on pointing out of the petitioner, would also need further probe into the matter. To cut it short, for the present, a case of further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner within the purview of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. has been made out, to say the least. Besides, the petitioner is also entitled to bail on basis of principle of rule of consistency as Muhammad Arshad, co-accused of the petitioner, who had been specifically named in the F.I.R. as one of the perpetrators of this crime, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order, dated 27-9-2006.

6. For what has been stated above, the application in hand is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two hundred thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./M-60/L Bail granted.