2017 PLP 436 (YLRN)

ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.

Through this petition under section 497 Cr.P.C. the petitioner Muhammad Waqas alias Dhillu has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No. 951/14 dated 29.09.2014 under sections 302, 34, 109, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Sabzi Mandi, Gujranwala.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of this case with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and deeper appreciation of evidence is not allowed at this stage. As per FIR, the allegation against the petitioner is that he along with his co-accused committed the murder of deceased Muhammad Saleem son of the complainant. During investigation, it has come on record that the petitioner was not present at the spot rather the occurrence took place on his abetment. Although, opinion of the police is not binding on the Courts of law, yet the same can be taken into consideration while deciding bail applications, therefore, by keeping into view the contents of FIR and the outcome of investigation, prima facie the case of the prosecution against the petitioner has become a case of two versions i.e. one put forward by the complainant and the other came on record during investigation and which version is correct shall be determined by the learned trial Court after recording evidence. Reliance can easily be placed upon case-law titled as Ehsan Ullah v. The State (2012 SCMR 1137). Nothing was recovered from the petitioner during investigation of this case. Post arrest bail of co-accused namely Beenish who allegedly facilitated her co-accused Rukshan Ali and that of Rukhsan Ali has been accepted by this Court vide order dated 24.05.2016 and 14.07.2016, therefore, petitioner also deserve concession of bail on the ground of consistency. Admittedly the petitioner was arrested in this case on 15.02.2015, and now more than one year, eleven months and fifteen days has elapsed and he is still behind the bars without any fruitful progress in his trial. It is settled law that nobody could be kept in jail for an indefinite period because detention of an accused before conviction in such like circumstances amounts to pre-mature imprisonment. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the accused in custody for an indefinite period, because it is not clear as to how much time would be consumed by the prosecution in completion of the trial. Reliance is placed on case-law titled as Hamid Ali v. The State (2009 SCMR 734). Investigation of the case is complete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation. His further incarceration in jail would not serve any useful purpose. Mere heinousness of offence is no ground to refuse bail to the accused, who otherwise becomes entitled for this concession.

3. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry covered by sub-section (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is granted bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. However, the learned Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial of the instant case positively within a period of six months from the receipt of certified copy of this order under intimation of this court through Deputy Registrar (Judicial).

4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only. WA/M-52/L Bail granted.