2011 PLP 788 (YLR)

CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.

Petitioner Muhammad Yasin through the instant petition has sought for post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.208 registered under section 302 read with section 34, P.P.C. with Police Station Qaboola, District Pakpattan Sharif on 14-5-2010.

2. Briefly the prosecution case as per the F.I.R. is that on the night between 13/14-5-2010 at 7-30 p.m. Mukhtar alias Baggi, the brother of the complainant went out of the house but he did not return back the whole night. The complainant became worried and had been searching for him but he could not get his clue. On the next morning about 6-00 p.m. Nazir Ahmad and Muhammad Siddique informed him that the dead body of his said brother was lying near the maize crop at a distance about 1-KM from the village. He along with other persons went there and found the dead body of his brother lying there with two fires on the face.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that he is not named in the F.I.R. The police have recorded the supplementary statement of the complainant on 1-7-2010. The same is to the effect that now his brother Irfan has told him that Yasin (petitioner) had taken away his deceased brother Mukhtar alias Baggi from the house as well as similar statement of his said brother Irfan.

4. Besides than this, there is also statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. of Muhammad Sadiq and Muhammad Ramzan, shown to have been recorded on 2-10-2010. According to the same, they on the eventful night, when were on their way to their houses, had heard the report of fires and in the light of the motorcycle saw two persons, while decamping from the scene. Admittedly, except than such statement .of these persons, there is no other evidence available against him on the record. These statements have been recorded about 1-1/2 month after the alleged incident. The question of evidentiary value of such belated statement is to be gone into at trial.

5. The case of the petitioner, when seen from such an angle, becomes one of further inquiry into his guilt and so, covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.

6. Although, he statedly has been arrested on 7-7-2010 but there is no quarrel to the proposition that when case of an accused may become one of further inquiry, he then cannot be detained unnecessarily for a moment even.

7. In these circumstances of the case, I have been persuaded to hold that the case for his enlargement 6n bail has been made out.

8. I, therefore, accept this petition and allow him bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.

9. However, it is clarified here that the above observations are tentative in nature and meant only for the disposal of the matter in hand. These shall have no bearing at all on anybody's case at trial. N.H.Q./M-573/L Bail allowed.