ANWAR KHAN vs THE STATE

ORDER

' Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R.

No,114 of 2001 registered on 18-5-2001 under sections 302, 324, 109, 148 and 149, P.P.C. With Police Station Manawala District Sheikhupura on the application of Mukhtar Ahmad for an occurrence which took place on 18-5-2001 in which Abdur Rashid was done to death by the accused and Mst.

Balqis Bibi received injuries. The petitioner namely Anwar Khan is not an accused and has not caused any injury or present at the spot. The only allegation against him is that due to his abetment the co-accused had committed the offence.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is 70 years of age and no place of occurrence where the abetment was made has been shown in the F.I.R. And the witnesses subsequently have been mentioned and concocted story has been made in order to involve the elder of the main accused.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has opposed this application on the ground that the name of the petitioner is mentioned in the F.I.R. And there is a material on the record to show that some abetment has been made by the petitioner with the co-accused for the murder of the deceased. He further contends that the main accused is still at large and the petitioner is not entitled to bail as he is an accused of a case which falls within the prohibitory clause.

4. Learned State Counsel has also opposed the bail application and contends that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. And the case falls within the prohibitory clause.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. The allegations against the petitioner is only of abetment, the names of the witnesses have not been mentioned who have witnessed the abetment in the F.I.R., the place of abetment and time has also not been given in the F.I.R. And subsequently some witnesses have been introduced whose statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Have been recorded to show that the abetment was made. It is yet to be seen at the time of trial whether the charge against the petitioner for the abetment of the main occurrence is supported by sufficient evidence or not. For the time being the petitioner who was not present at the spot and is not alleged to have caused any injury to the deceased or to any of the witnesses has succeeded in making out a Case of further inquiry which is covered by subsection (2) of section 497,' Cr.P.C. The petitioner is 70 years of age and old age itself brings infirmity.

6. This application is accepted and the petitioner is allowed subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.