' I had already granted bail to co-accused of the petitioner through Criminal Miscellaneous No,3856/B of 2003, so the facts need not be reiterated here again.
2. In support of this petition, learned counsel submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case; he was not present at the spot; he was in jail on the day of occurrence and that there is no independent evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence.
3. Learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that petitioner is named in the F.I.R.; he is connected with motive of the case because he is brother of Abu Talib who was fired at by some unknown person; the petitioner was arrested in case F.I.R. No,39 of 2003 under section 13 of Arms Ordinance XX of 1965 with Police Station Shandara, Lahore and was produced before the Area Magistrate on 24-1-2003, allowed bail as the offence was bailable, did not file the bail bond till 28-1-2003 when the present occurrence had taken place on 27-1-2003 and that two witnesses namely Rehmat and Farzand in their statements under section 161. Cr.P.C.
Have stated that the petitioner had told them that they should ask their near relatives who are deceased in this case to be careful because he had a programme to murder them. Lastly submits that offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
4. Definition of abetment has been given in section 107, P.P.C. The same is reproduced:- "107. Abetment of a thing.--- A person abets the doing of a thing, who- First: instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly ...............................................................................................................
Thirdly ...................................................................................................................
' The first clause says that unless some abets or instigates other person to commit the murder of other person, he is only then stated to have abeted. I have repeatedly asked learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant to point out any evidence against the petitioner as has been defined in section 107, P.P.C. But they failed to do so. Even otherwise, name of the witnesses, time, date and place has not been mentioned in whole of the F.I.R. Reliance is placed on PLD 1996 SC 241.
' Resultantly, from tentative assessm ent of the material available on record I am of the view that case of the petitioner is one of further inquiry within the meaning of subsection (2) to section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is thus, accepted and petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs,one lac with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of D.R. (Judicial) of this Court.