Through this petition, the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail, in case F.I.R. No, 447 of 2006 dated 13.6.2006 for offences under Sections 302 and 460 P.P.C., registered at Police Station A-Division City Sheikhupura, District Sheikhupura,
2. Briefly stated that facts of the case are that the sister of the complainant was murdered by some unknown persons and consequently, the aforementioned F.I.R. was lodged.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and has been implicated in the case on the basis of a supplementary statement which has no value; that eight co-accused of the petitioner had already been allowed bail by the learned lower Court as well as by this Court and since the role of the accused is similar, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to the same concession; that the bail of the petitioner was declined by the learned lower Court on account of his being an absconder which was no ground for disallowing bail as the petitioner was otherwise entitled to the bail on merits; that there is no direct evidence of commission of offence by the petitioner and that the recovery has been planted on the petitioner.
4. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General has vehemently opposed the petition.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
The petitioner is not named is an accused in the F.LR. and has been implicated alongwith ten others in the supplementary statement recorded by the complainant in which only suspicion has been cast against the petitioner and others for committing the murder of his deceased sister. Even otherwise the witnesses, on whose information the complainant had recorded the supplementary statement only stated that they had seen the petitioner as well as other accused leaving the house of the deceased. As to how the complainant had formed suspicion about the murder having been committed by the petitioner and others is a complete mystery. Although some gold ornaments and a knife have been recovered from the petitioner during investigation, however, the same were effected after about one year and three months, therefore, the recovery is not of much significance and cannot prima facie connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence. Imran Sajid, a co-accused of the petitioner from whom two gold ring were recovered during investigation and Naseer Ahmad, another co-accused of the petitioner from whose possession a gold ring as well as blood-stained Chhurri was recovered, was allowed bail by this Court on 19.6.2007 and 25.10.2007.
Since the case of the petitioner is at par with the said co-accused, therefore, keeping in view the principle of consistency the petitioner is also entitled to the grant of post-arrest bail. The argument that the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of bail on account of his being an absconder for a considerable period is also dev did of any merit as mere absconding is no ground to decline bail if the accused is otherwise entitled to it on merits. Needless to add that the co-accused, namely, Naseer and Imran, who have been allowed bail, were also absconders.
6. For what has been stated above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.