MUHAMMAD AFZAL Versus State
ORDER
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.--- Through this petition under section 497 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No.719/15, dated 21.11.2015 registered at Police Station City Arifwala, District Pakpattan Sharif in respect of offences under sections 302, 34 P.P.C.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of this case with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and only tentative assessment is allowed at this stage. After perusing the record of this case it has been noticed by this Court that although the petitioner is named in FIR, yet the fact remains that there is a delay of one month and eleven days in lodging the FIR, which has not been explained by the complainant, which prima facie reflects that the FIR was got lodged after due deliberation and consultation. In FIR, the complainant has leveled allegation that the petitioner along with one unknown co-accused had caught hold the deceased from his legs and his co-accused Muhammad Ayub had put a pillow on the mouth of the deceased. As per FIR, the occurrence allegedly took place on 10.08.2015 and on the same day the complainant got recorded a Rapt No.35 under section 174, Cr.P.C. at the same police station wherein he stated that the deceased felt pain in his chest and was being shifted to the hospital but he died in the way. He further stated therein that he did not know the cause of death of the deceased and there was no mark of violence on his dead body. It is also worthy to note here that the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in Rapt No.35 dated 10.08.2015 as the culprit of the offence. These facts prima facie create doubt about the involvement of petitioner in this case and it is settled law that accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt even at bail stage. Apart from the above, accused Shahid Bashir, who has been burdened with the role of catching hold the deceased from his arms, has already been granted bail vide this Court's order dated 05.09.2016 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.9835-B of 2016; the role assigned to the petitioner is at par with that of his co-accused Shahid Bashir, so the petitioner also deserve same treatment on the basis of rule of consistency. In this regard reliance can be placed on the cases of "Muhammad Ramzan v. Zafar Ullah and another" (1986 SCMR 1380) and "Shahid v. The State" (1994 SCMR 393) The petitioner is behind the bars since 08.12.2015 without any fruitful progress in his trial. As far as the contention of learned counsel for the complainant that the trial of the petitioner's case has commenced, it is settled law that if the accused becomes entitled to the concession of bail, he can be enlarged on bail even at the stage of final arguments and in this regard sub section (4) of section 497, Cr.P.C. is very much clear. Investigation to the extent of the petitioner is complete, he is admittedly previous non-convict and his person is no more required by the police for further investigation, therefore, his continuous incarceration in jail would not serve any beneficial purpose at this stage.
3. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner is called for further inquiry into his guilt covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his 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 the learned trial court.
4. The observations made herein-above are tentative in nature and are only meant for the decision of bail petition.
WA/M-26/L Bail granted.