MUHAMMAD SAEED vs The STATE and another

ORDER

' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---The petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,487, dated 23-9- 2010, under sections 302, 34, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Saddar Arifwala, District Pakpattan Sharif.

2. Precisely the prosecution case as narrated by Muhammad Eisa (complainant) is that his brother Muhammad Amin while riding a motorcycle reached the agricultural land of one Ghulam Rasool where he was intercepted by three persons, armed with pistol .30 bore each, one out of whom Muhammad Bashir fired a shot with his weapon which landed at the head, close to left ear of his brother and pierced across the skull from the other side, one of the unknown accused also made a fire shot which hit the neck area of his brother; the occurrence was witnessed by Manzoor Ahmad and Muhammad Sharif; the motive behind the occurrence pertained to the fact that accused Bashir had developed illicit relationship with his niece, who asked him for her hand but he rejected his request.

3. The eye-witnesses Manzoor Ahmad and Muhammad Sharif were examined under section 161, Cr.P.C. On 23-9-2010 by the I.O. Whereby they endorsed the story of F.I.R. In entirety. Both of them however, rendered another statement on 24-9-2010 and on this occasion, they nominated Muhammad Saeed (petitioner) with the liability to have fired at the neck of the deceased, without disclosing the source of their knowledge qua the said fact.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that the petitioner's name figures, for the first time, as an accused when, both the eye-witnesses, Manzoor Ahmad and Muhammad Sharif rendered secondary statements on 24-9-2010 with the contention that they had identified him and it was he, who had fired at the neck of the deceased. They however, did not disclose the source through which they learnt about the alleged participation of the accused/petitioner in the occurrence. Interestingly, both the eyewitnesses categorically contended before the I.O. On 23-9-2010 while rendering statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. That an unknown accused, who accompanied Muhammad Bashir accused, fired a missile which passed through the neck of the deceased. The hesitancy on their part in hinting at the source of their knowledge is a crucial circumstance which cannot be lost sight of easily. It appears from the record that only one prosecution witness has been recorded by the trial Court so far notwithstanding a categorical direction of this court, made on 17-7-2012 in Criminal Miscellaneous No,8251-B of 2012, that the trial of the accused-petitioner be concluded expeditiously, within, shortest possible time. Divergent pleas has been raised on both the sides as to who actually contributed towards delay in conclusion of the trial but I find from the record that much of the time had gone wasted, due to repeated strike calls by the local bar association. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 9-5-2012 but not before he had been declared a proclaimed offender during investigation and a report under section 512, Cr.P.C. Stood submitted against him by the I.O., before the learned trial Court.

' He was, however, declared innocent by the I.O. Who opined about the F.I.R. Case having gone untraced. On an objection raised by the prosecution branch, the I.O. Prepared afresh report under section 173, Cr.P.C., placing the name of the petitioner in its Column No,2. In the last round of investigation conducted by the RIB Sahiwal, the petitioner and his co-accused Muhammad Bashir were found involved in the occurrence. The divergent opinions of the I.Os. About alleged participation of the petitioner in the occurrence are relevant for consideration of the bail plea of the petitioner. Sufficient reasons exist to believe that the petitioner's case calls for further probe into his guilt, within the scope of section 497(2), Cr.P.C., hence his alleged abscondence does not adversely affect the outcome of this petition. Therefore, the instant application is allowed and petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2 lacs with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.