' In support of this petition for the grant, of bail, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated; though, the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. But no time, date, place and the names of the P.Ws. Is mentioned in the F.I.R. Regarding abetment; in all, there are 9 accused, 7 are still at large, petitioner and one Allah Rakha were being tried; during the course of trial, the counsel for the complainant moved an application that the absconding accused should also be tried in absentia and that application is still pending in the learned trial Court. Further submits that P.Ws. 6 and 8 have appeared before the learned trial Court but they had not levelled any allegation of abetment against the present petitioner.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant assisted by learned counsel for the State submits that statement of witnesses of abetment were recorded on 10-3-2006; offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C., as such, the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of bail.
3. Heard.
4. No time, date and place or the names of the P.Ws. Who heard the abetment, is given in the FIR.
Unfortunately, the learned trial Court started trial against the petitioner and one A of his co- accused, recorded 8 P.Ws. When the complainant party submitted an application for absentia trial of proclaimed offenders and now the trial has been stayed by the learned trial Court. Even the statements of the alleged witnesses of abetment were recorded after four days of the occurrence.
While relying on PLD 1996 Supreme Court 241 (Syed Amanullah Shah v. The State), this petition is accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (Judi.) of this Court.