ZUMARAD KHAN Versus State
ORDER
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.--- Through petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. Zumard Khan petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No. 349/15, dated 26.11.2015 registered at Police Station Fateh Jang, District Attock in respect of an offence under section 302, P.P.C. During the investigation section 34, P.P.C. had been added to the FIR.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of this case it has been noticed by this Court that the name of the petitioner is not figured in the FIR rather he has been involved in this case through a supplementary statement got recorded by the complainant after registration of FIR wherein allegedly the deceased was lastly seen by PWs going on motorcycle along with the petitioner and his co-accused Imran who emerged as main accused during investigation with the role of firing at deceased. The petitioner has been involved in this case on the basis of last-seen evidence whereas no overt act has been ascribed to him therein and law is quite settled on the point that circumstantial evidence based on suspicion is a weak type of evidence and the same is to be appreciated by the courts of law at the time of trial with the touch stone of other pieces of evidence. Likewise, law is also settled on the point that suspicion howsoever is grave or strong cannot be considered as an evidence required in murder case. The motive has been introduced in this case at belated stage during investigation as in the FIR the complainant had not mentioned motive, i.e. illicit liaison of deceased with wife of the petitioner. The petitioner is real brother of his co-accused Imran to whom role of firing on deceased is attributed so possibility cannot be ruled out of consideration that while widening the net the complainant has involved the petitioner in this case. The evidentiary value of alleged recovered mobile phone sets from the petitioner would be considered by the learned trial court at the time of trial. The petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest, i.e. 03.12.2015, the investigation of this case qua the petitioner is complete, the petitioner is previous non-convict, never involved in any criminal case, the conclusion of trial is not expected in near future, thus, his continuous incarceration in jail would not serve any beneficial purpose at this stage. Although trial of the petitioner is in progress yet commencement of trial is no ground to refuse bail who otherwise becomes entitled for concession of bail.
3. For what has been discussed above this petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the leaned trial Court.
HBT/Z-17/L Bail granted.