MUHAMMAD MUNIR Versus State
ORDER
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.--- Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner Muhammad Munir has sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No.77/2016 dated 19.04.2016 under sections 302, 148, 149, 404, 109, 420, 468, 471, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Harnoli District Mianwali.
2. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties have been heard and record of this case has also 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 the petitioner is not named in the FIR. The petitioner was not nominated in the first supplementary statement recorded on the same day rather he has been involved in this case through second supplementary statement dated 24.04.2016 after about five days of the occurrence on the information provided by one Aamar and Liaqat and admittedly there statements in this regard were recorded by the investigating officer on 14.06.2016 after about one month and twenty days of second supplementary statement and why they remained mum for such a period creates serious doubt regarding the authenticity of their statements and it is settled law that the benefit of slightest doubt arising out of prosecution case can be given to the accused even at bail stage. Reliance in this regard is placed on case titled as "Imbrass and another v. The State and another" "2016 SCMR 1558." The petitioner has been substituted in lieu of one of three unknown accused who have been assigned a joint role of making firing at Muhammad Mukhtar deceased which allegedly hit him at the chest above the right and left nipple, but postmortem report of the deceased shows that the injuries on right and left nipple of deceased i.e. injuries Nos. 7 and 8 are exit wounds which apparently shows that there is conflict between ocular and medical evidence to the extent of present petitioner. Reliance in this regard is placed on case titled as "Syed Khalid Hussain Shah v. The State" "2014 SCMR 12" It is settled law that question of sharing common intention with his co-accused for committing the murder of deceased shall be determined by the learned trial court after recording evidence. Admittedly, the petitioner is previous non-convict. He is behind the bars since 12.06.2016. Investigation of the case is complete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation. Nobody could be kept in jail for an indefinite period. His further incarceration in jail would not serve any useful purpose. Mere heinousness of offence is no ground to refuse bail to the accused, who otherwise becomes entitled for this concession.
3. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition, therefore, while relying upon case titled as "Muhammad Shafi and others v. The State and others" "2016 SCMR 1593" is allowed and the petitioner is granted bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only.
WA/M-31/L Petition allowed.