' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J . --- Through this application under section 497, Cr.P.C. Imran Sikandar, petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No,558 of 2006, dated 4-8-2006, registered under sections 302, 109, 148.149, P.P.C. At Police Station Shorekot, District Jhang, on the statement of Zulfiqar Ali, the complainant.
2. The brief facts as contained in the F.I.R. Are that on 4-8-2006 at about 6-00 a.m. In the area of Chak No,488/J.B. Police Station Shorekot, District Jhang, five accused persons namely Muhammad Sajjad, Ghulam Shabbir, Iftikhar alias Pappi, Sajid and Nazir Ahmad while variously armed in furtherance of their common object had committed the murder of Muhammad Iqbal. Muhammad Sajjad, co-accused was alleged to have caused three Sota blows to the deceased, while the other accused were alleged to have made aerial firing and also implicated butt blows to the deceased.
However, Ghulam Abbas, Mst. Naziran Bibi, Irfan and Imran (co-accused) were alleged to have hatchet conspiracy with the aforesaid accused while present in the house of Ghulam Abbas in the preceding night at 11-00 p.m. Which was over heard by Qaiser Abbas and Muhammad Safdar P.Ws., who informed the complainant after the occurrence. The motive behind the occurrence was alleged to be previous enmity on account of causing injuries to Mst. Naziran Bibi and Muhammad Sajjad (co-accused) by the deceased and case F.I.R. No,474 of 2003 had been registered at the same police station. The present petitioner was subsequently substituted with Iftikhar alias Pappi.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. And his name has been introduced in the supplementary statement; that the complainant specifically claimed that five accused namely, Muhammad Sajjad, Ghulam Shabbir, Iftikhar alias Pappi, Sajid Ali and Nazir Ahmad, had come at the spot and participated in the incident, who were known to him as they used to visit the house of the complainant and he also involved .Four accused in the conspiracy, but they did not mention the name of the petitioner that he had participated in the occurrence; that the complainant has failed to disclose the source through which he came to know that instead of Iftikhar alias Pappi, it was the present petitioner, who had participated in the main occurrence; that mala fide of the complainant is crystal clear, who after taking huge amount from Iftikhar alias Pappi had exonerated him and involved the present petitioner in the present case; that even otherwise, no specific role was attributed to the petitioner; that recovery of rifle .8 mm from the petitioner is immaterial as no injury with firearm was received by the deceased and that the case against the petitioner is of further inquiry, who may be enlarged on bail.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this bail petition on the ground that the incident had taken place at 6-00 a.m. On 4-8-2006 and then the deceased in an injured condition had been taken to the D.H.Q. Hospital at 8-30 a.m. Through complainant for medical examination, whose presence at the spot stood established and that 21 empties were recovered from the spot, but the police did not send the same for matching with the weapons malafidely and important piece of evidence was destroyed; that the eye-witnesses had also nominated the petitioner as accused, who had participated in the incident instead of Iftikhar Ahmad mentioned in the F.I.R.; that the charge has been framed and witnesses are being summoned for recording their statements and that offence falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And bail may be refused.
5. The learned Additional Prosecutor-General has adopted the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant.
6. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with due care and caution.
7. The incident in the present case had taken place at 6-00 a.m. On 4-8-2006 and F.I.R. Had been recorded with the delay of four and half hours. The names of all the five accused persons namely Muhammad Sajjad, Ghulam Shabbir, Iftikhar alias Pappi, Sajid and Nazir Ahmad with their parentage, caste and residential addresses were duly got recorded by the complainant in the F.I.R.
And it was also claimed by the complainant that two witnesses had over heard Naziran Bibi, Ghulam Abbas, Sikandar and Imran co-accused while hatching the conspiracy with the other five accused mentioned in the F.I.R. It is noteworthy that even the name of the petitioner was not included in the names of accused, who had allegedly hatched conspiracy in the preceding night of the occurrence. It is doubtful that the complainant and the witnesses of conspiracy had forgotten the name of the present petitioner and got introduced the name of Iftikhar alias Pappi in the F.I.R.
No source of information has been disclosed by the 'complainant through, which he came to know that the present petitioner was amongst the participants of the occurrence instead of Iftikhar alias Pappi. For the time being the case against the present petitioner had become one of further inquiry. Even otherwise, no specific role was attributed to the petitioner and along with the co- accused general role of causing butt blows to the victim and making aerial firing was attributed to him. The recovery of rifle .8 mm from the petitioner is immaterial, as no empty had been sent to the office of Forensic Science Laboratory for the comparison with the said weapon. The learned trial Court will see the veracity of the supplementary statement of the complainant regarding the actual involvement of the present petitioner in the occurrence after recording the evidence. For the time being no reasonable ground exists to prima facie connect the petitioner with the alleged crime and benefit of doubt at any stage has to go to the accused.
' For the foregoing reasons, the instant bail application is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.