' Muhammad Yousaf Baig son of Nathu Baig seeks his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.158 of 2003 dated 5-4-2003 registered under sections 302, 324, 337-A-II, 337-F-II, 452/34, 148, 149, P.P.C. At Police Station, Satiana District Faisalabad. According to the story as put forward by the complainant Muhammad Nawaz son of Muhammad Anwar Baig he was a resident of Mohallah Noorpura, Chak No.214/R.B.; that on 4-4-2003 at about 11 a.m. He had come to participate in the wedding of his relative Mushtaq Beg's daughter; his uncle Younus Beg and other relatives were also participating in the party; about 4-00 p.m. His uncle Younus Beg was returning home and when he reached in front of the house of Khurshid Bibi widow of Walayat Beg in the street, the five accused named in the F.I.R., namely, Arif Beg armed with pistol, Riaz Beg armed with .12 bore gun, Abdul Rauf armed with Sota, Rashad Beg armed with Khanjar and Arshad Beg armed with gun intercepted him; Arshad Beg raised Lalkara that Younus Beg should not escape whereupon the accused persons started beating up his uncle and commenced firing; on hearing the fire shots Mirza Iftikhar Beg and Mehmood Beg came to the spot; that within their sight Abdul Rauf .Caused a Sota blow on the head of Younus Beg, who fell down; Arshad Beg inflicted a Khanjar blow on Younus Beg hitting him on his right palm; Riaz hit him with the butt of his gun on his head whereas Arif Beg also hit on the right side of the head; all the accused persons forced their entry into the house of his uncle Younus Beg and stated that Younus Beg's son Muhammad Ilyas be also killed; Ilyas entered into a room of the house and bolted it from inside; on the noise raised by the witnesses the accused persons left the place while raising Lalkaras. Accordingly the instant F.I.R. Was recorded.
2. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 5-12-2003. He applied for his post arrest bail which was declined by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaranwala vide order dated 10-12-2003. Hence the instant bail application.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his plea for bail has argued that the petitioner's name did not figure in the F.I.R. At all; that the complainant who had otherwise given the minutest details of the occurrence in the F.I.R. Did not mention the name of the petitioner; that even otherwise both the parties are closely related inter se and if the petitioner had committed any offence or had participated in the occurrence the same should have found mention 'in the F.I.R.; that the petitioner was involved on the basis of supplementary statements of two witnesses, namely Mehmood Beg and Mushtaq Beg purportedly recorded on 1-12-2003 almost 8 months after the alleged occurrence in which both of them stated that the present petitioner had also participated in the occurrence; that no sanctity could be attached to the said supplementary statements made by the witnesses who were closely related and knew the petitioner; that no explanation is forthcoming as to why these two witnesses kept quiet for 8 months; that in the initial investigation two co-accused, namely, Arshad and Arif had been declared innocent and they had been placed on column No.2 and the investigation was transferred by the IGP to the S.P., Sadar who held the petitioner as also two co-accused Arshad and Arif as guilty. The learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that even according to the supplementary statements of Mehmood Beg and Mushtaq Beg no overt act has been attributed to the petitioner and they only stated that the present petitioner was present and took part in causing injuries to the deceased. He finally argued that the petitioner was an old man of 80 years and on the ground of senescence alone he was entitled to the concession of bail.
4. As against this Mr. Naseer Ahmad Bhutta, Advocate for the complainant and the learned counsel for the State Mr. Khalid Khokhar have opposed the grant of bail. It was contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that the bona fides of the complainant could be gathered from the fact that he did not name the petitioner as an accused and that his name figured during the course of investigation. He further added that F.I.R. Is never considered to be as exhaustive document and it was not incumbent upon the complainant to have mentioned the name of the petitioner. He went on to add that four of the co-accused who actually participated in the occurrence were real sons of the petitioner and he was in a position to dictate to the said accused.
He finally argued that since the charge has already been framed on 10-2-2004 therefore, this Court may not like to exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner at this stage. The learned State counsel has adopted the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel at length. I have also examined the record brought to this Court by Dost Muhammad S.I. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the State. It is not denied that the petitioner's name did not figure in the F.I.R. As also in the initial investigation and for the first time he was named as accused person by Mehmood Beg and Mushtaq Beg P.Ws. In the supplementary statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. On 1-12- 2003. They both in their supplementary statements .Stated that in addition to the five accused named in the F.I.R. They also saw Yousaf Beg participating in the occurrence and injuring the deceased. It is also not denied that the accused as well as the complainant are closely related inter se. According to Dost Muhammad S.I. The deceased was real brother of the present petitioner.
The involvement of the petitioner on the basis of the supplementary statement of the two witnesses whose statements were recorded eight months after the incident calls for further inquiry.
It is now an established position that this Court will not be prevented from granting the concession of bail to an accused person if he is entitled to the. Same on merit merely because the challan has been submitted or the trial has commenced. I would not like to make any detailed observation on the quality of the material available with the prosecution to connect the petitioner with the incident lest it may prejudice its case. Suffice it to say that in the given facts and circumstances of the case I find that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail. Accordingly this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
' Before parting with this order I would like to observe that the observations made herein are tentative in nature and would not affect the course of trial in any manner. With this observation this petition stands disposed of.