' Muhammad Abbas petitioner, by filing the instant petition, seeks his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No,1721 of 2002, dated 31-12-2002, registered at Police Station, Lundianwala, District Faislabad at the instance of Amanat Ali alias Kallo son of Haji Muhammad Mansha for offences under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, 109, 301 and 120-B, P.P.C.
2. Briefly the facts of the case as unfolded in the F.I.R. Are that the complainant is resident of Chak No,581/GB and is a cultivator by profession; on 31-12-2002 Arshad Ali Kharal, resident of Faridana, Police Station, Saddar Nankana Sahib, District Sheikhupura had visited his house on a motorcycle bearing registration No,9404/GAL; about 7/8.00 p.m., his brother Muhammad Younas, Asghar Ali son of Allah Ditta, Javaid Iqbal son of Mian Khan, resident of the village while riding the said motorcycle went to a nearby residential area to get a Television; when they were on their way back to their home and had reached near Primary School, some unknown persons abruptly appeared and started firing; the fire-shots hit Muhammad Younas on his back side, Asghar Ali on his left thigh, left shin and foot; Javaid Iqbal also suffered fire shot injuries on his right shin and left foot; they fell on the ground from the motorcycle; the commotion raised by the complainant attracted Akbar son of Shahadat, Sarfraz son of Jagga and other residents of the village to the spot, who witnessed the occurrence; when they went forward to provide succour to Muhammad Younas, he had breathed his last; the accused scampered away from the spot. According to the complainant, they had no enmity with any one. Resultantly, the instant F.I.R. Had been registered.
3. The petitioner's plea for post-arrest bail did not find favour with the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaranwala, District Faisalabad, who dismissed his application vide order, dated 12-7-2004.
Hence, the instant petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for both the sides at length and have also perused the record brought by Muhammad Yar, A.S.-I.
5. It has been observed that initially it was a blind F.I.R. And did not contain names of any of the accused persons. However, subsequently, on 25-4-2003, the father of the complainant made an application to the Investigating Officer, stating that Bashir son of Daulat Khan, Muhammad Yousaf son of Mughla, Amanat son of Noora and Mazhar son of Yousaf were the perpetrators of the crime.
Even the said application, which had been moved almost four months after the incident, did not contain the name of the petitioner. His name surfaced for the first time in the supplementary statement made by the complainant himself on 20-6-2003, whereby he added another four names to the list of his father and stated that apart from the said four persons, Manzoor son of Kameer, Nawaz son of Ali, Abbas petitioner and Khizra were also involved. Two other persons, namely, Mian Khan and Liaqat Ali were also involved for alleged abetment under section 109, P.P.C., who according to the record, had been got discharged from the case. At present the only material available against the petitioner is the supplementary statement dated 20-6-2003 of the complainant, wherein he had stated that the petitioner was one of the accused. Apart from that there is no worthwhile material available on the record, which could connect him with the alleged crime. Perusal of the record also reveals that the petitioner had initially been declared innocent by Muhammad Nawaz, S.-I., but later on the Superintendent of Police, who conducted investigation, found him guilty apparently without bringing any fresh material on record. In view of the material available at present against the petitioner, it cannot be said that reasonable grounds appear to exist against the petitioner disclosing his complicity in the crime. It would be profitable to cite the case of Manzoor and 4 others v. The State PLD 1972 SC 81, wherein their lordships of the apex Court held that there was no legal or moral compulsion to keep people in jail merely on the allegation that they have committed offences punishable with death or transportation, unless reasonable grounds appeared to exist to disclose their complicity. The ultimate conviction and incarceration of a guilty person can repair the wrong caused by a mistaken relief of interim to him, but no satisfactory reparation can be offered to an innocent man for his unjustified incarceration at any stage of. the case albeit his acquittal in the long run. The instant case had been registered as far back as on 31-12-2002. Almost two years have elapsed and the trial has not even commenced. In view of the attending facts and circumstances, the case of the petitioner is pre-eminently one of further inquiry within the meanings of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released from custody subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
7. Before parting with this order, I would like to add that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and are not designed to 'influence the trial in any manner whatsoever.