AKHTAR ALI Versus State
ORDER
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.--- Through this single order, I propose to decide Criminal Miscellaneous No.36209-B of 2017, Criminal Miscellaneous No.37267-B of 2017 and Criminal Miscellaneous No.52026-B of 2017 as in all these petitions, Akhtar Ali, Naveed Ahmad and Naeem Ali petitioners have sought post-arrest bail under section 497, Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.212/16 dated 09.05.2016 under sections 302, 364, 201, 148, 149, P.P.C., Police Station QIE, Lahore.
2. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record of this case has been perused with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and deeper appreciation is not allowed at this stage. It has been noticed by this Court that there is one day's delay in reporting the matter to the police and even then the petitioners are not named therein as the culprits of the alleged offence. The petitioners have been implicated in this case through supplementary statement got recorded by the complainant on 20.05.2016 i.e. with the delay of twelve days after the alleged incident and the sole source of information revealed by the complainant in his supplementary statement is the disclosure of one Muhammad Arif, who too is only the witness of last seen. Moreover, no mark of violence was observed by the doctor on the dead body of the deceased and the opinion in respect of cause of death was deferred till the receipt of the report of Chemical Examiner, but the requisite report is still awaited even after the lapse of more than one and half years. During arguments, learned counsel for the complainant contended that in her statement before the investigating officer, Mst. Ayesha Kausar Khan co-accused, who has already been granted post-arrest bail, has also pointed accusing fingers towards the petitioners. In this regard, I may observe here that evidentiary value of such statement of co-accused shall be determined by learned trial court after recording evidence. Apart from the above, the petitioners are previous non-convict; they are behind the bars since 20.05 2016 but their trial has not seen any fruitful progress as yet. Investigation to the extent of the petitioners is complete and they are no more required for further investigation, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping them behind the bars. Mere heinousness of offence is no ground to refuse bail if otherwise the accused become entitled to the concession of bail. The case-law relied upon by learned counsel for the complainant i.e. 2013 SCMR 385 is not applicable on the facts and circumstances of this case.
3. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioners becomes one of further inquiry covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. These petitions are, therefore, allowed and the petitioners are granted bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand only) with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.
4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only.
HBT/A-9/L Bail granted.