MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus STATE

ORDER

Through this petition Muhammad Sharif petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.26 registered at Police Station Dera Raheem, District Sahiwal on 29-1-2001 for offences under sections 302/34/109, P.P.C.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that admittedly the present petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence at the time of the incident in question and, thus, he has not been attributed any injury to any person. The only allegation levelled against the petitioner is in respect of hatching of a conspiracy/providing abetment to his co-accused for commission of the alleged offences. Although the petitioner has been named in the F. I. R. as an abetter but the information so disclosed in the F.I.R. does not mention any source of such information. The F.I.R. in this case had been lodged on 29-1-2001 and after a passage of one day after registration of the F.I.R. two witnesses namely Muhammad Tufail and Abdul Hameed had made their statements before the Investigating Officer regarding overhearing of hatching of a conspiracy by the petitioner with his co-accused two days prior to the incident. They had kept quiet for the next two days till the occurrence in question and had come into the picture for the first time one day after the incident disclosing their overhearing of the alleged conspiracy hatched by the petitioner. The worth and evidentiary value of such a piece of evidence shall be considered by the learned trial Court at the time of the Trial. Apart from the prosecution is not possessed of any other material to support the allegation against the present petitioner.

3. It has vehemently been argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that the principal accused of this case namely Muhammad Riaz alias Raja is still a fugitive from law and is at large and that admission of the present petitioner to bail shall impede and hamper the efforts of the police to apprehend the said fugitive. I have, however, remained unable to subscribe to the said contention of the learned counsel for the complainant. It is settled law that one accused person cannot be held as a hostage for the arrest of another.

4. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

H.B.T./M-832/L ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.