USMAN ALI Versus State

ORDER

ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.--- Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No.42/16 dated 08.02.2016 under sections 302, 404, 34, 109, P.P.C., registered at Police Station City Samundari, District Faisalabad.

2. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties have been heard and record of this case has been perused with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and only tentative assessment is required at this stage, therefore, without going into deeper appreciation of material available on the record, it has been noticed by this Court that the petitioner is not named in FIR; he has been implicated in this case by Muhammad Iqbal, father of the deceased, through supplementary statement dated 12.02.2016 i.e. four days after the alleged occurrence that too without disclosing any plausible source of information on the basis of which he has been implicated in this case. It is settled law that evidentiary value of such type of supplementary statement shall be determined by learned trial court at an appropriate stage. Moreover, there is no eye-witness of the alleged occurrence and the prosecution is relying on the witnesses of last seen as well as extra judicial confession. It is settled law that evidentiary value of such type of evidence i.e. evidence of last seen and extra judicial confession as well as vicarious liability of the petitioner for the murder of deceased shall be determined by learned trial court at an appropriate stage. Reliance is placed on " Rahat Ali v. State " (2010 SCMR 584) and " Abid Mehmood v. State" (2017 SCMR 728). The petitioner is previous non-convict and never involved in any other case. He is behind the bars since 01.11.2016; a period of more than one year, one month and eleven days has lapsed but his trial has not seen any fruitful progress as yet. Investigation of the case is complete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation. Nobody can be kept in jail for indefinite period as speedy trial is the right of every accused, therefore, further incarceration of the petitioner in jail would not serve any useful purpose.

3. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioner is covered by first proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is granted bail after arrest 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 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.

HBT/U-2/L Bail granted.