WASEEM IQBAL vs THE STATE

ORDER

' ZAFAR IQBAL CHAUDHRY, J.---Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. Waseem Iqbal petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,8, dated 10-1-2008 registered under section 302/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Mitha Tiwana District Khushab with the allegation that on 10-1-2008 Wali Muhammad (deceased) brother-in-law (bahnoee) of the complainant went to his brick-kiln to pay the wages of labourers but did not come back. In the evening at about 7-30 p.m. The complainant received information that said Wali Muhammad was lying injured on southern side of Canal Hadali in the area of Mitha Tiwana. On receipt of information, the complainant along with Tariq Muhammad, Muhammad Mumtaz and Safdar Hayat reached at the place where he was lying dead. They attended to him and found that he had received firearm injuries on left cheek, back side and chest and succumbed to said injuries. It is further alleged that Wali Muhammad deceased was done to death by some unknown persons by firing with fire-arm.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the and he has been involved on the basis of supplementary statement of the complainant which was recorded on 20-6-2008 almost after six months of the occurrence; that the only evidence with the prosecution is in the shape of last seen and extra judicial confession which was collected after six months of the occurrence; that no recovery of weapon of offence has been made from the exclusive possession of the petitioner and keeping in view this weak type of evidence case of the petitioner falls within the purview of further inquiry; that the co-accused of the petitioner has recently been arrested but the challan against him has not been submitted by the prosecution so far and as such there is no likelihood of conclusion of the trial in the near future.

3. Learned DPG assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant opposes this petition on the ground that the petitioner has committed a heinous offence and the complainant in his supplementary statement had specifically named the petitioner as accused; that the recovery of crime weapon has been effected from the petitioner and he is not entitled to the grant of bail.

5. Perusal of the record shows that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. He was involved subsequently on the basis of supplementary statement made by the complainant after about six months of the alleged occurrence. The prosecution has collected evidence in the shape of last A seen and extra judicial confession against the petitioner. Admittedly statements of the witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C. Were recorded on 20-6-2008 i,e, after six months of the occurrence, who claimed to have seen the deceased in the accompany of the petitioner six months prior i,e, on the date of occurrence, but it is strange that for such a long period why these witnesses kept silent and did not pass on the said information to the relatives of the deceased or the police. It is also not denied that the co-accused of the petitioner who was absconder has recently been arrested and challan against him is yet to be submitted in the Court. Keeping in view this situation the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future. For the time being I am satisfied that the case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry and he cannot be kept behind the bars as a punishment. Hence this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing 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.