' ZAFAR IQBAL CHAUDHRY, J.--Through this petition Ijaz Iqbal petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,149 registered at Police Station Old Anarkali, Lahore on 8-5-2002 for offences under section 302/34, P.P.C.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been involved in this false case on account of mala fide of the complainant as well as the local police. The complainant has spread the net wide so as to entangle the entire family of the petitioner in this case. During the investigation of this case two brothers (co-accused) of the petitioner have already been declared innocent by the local police but the petitioner was challaned under the undue influence of the complainant. According to him at the time of occurrence he was also not present at the spot and he took a plea of alibi and in support of this plea he produced copy of Nikah Nama, dated 8-5- 2008 which shows that on the date of occurrence he was married to Mst. Farida Bibi. Not only that when he was lodged in judicial lock-up and was not in a position to pay the maintenance allowance to Mst. Farida Bibi, she filed a suit for maintenance allowance against him in which the date of Nikah is also same which has been mentioned in Nikah Nama. During the investigation brother of the deceased namely Tariq Sohail Butt has also filed a complaint against some other culprits along with the complainant of this case which also makes the case of the petitioner one of further inquiry. Lstly he submits that the petitioner is suffering from different diseases and according to which report from Medical Officer of jail has been received according to which the petitioner cannot be provided proper treatment in jail hospital. He is in judicial lock-up since 22-10- 2002 and his trial has not concluded yet. Only statement of two witnesses have been recorded, one witness is a formal and the other is the complainant himself.
3. On the other hand the learned DPG assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant states that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. And the complainant has no motive to falsely implicate him in this case. He has specifically been attributed injuries to the deceased and delay in conclusion of the trial is also due to the petitioner because his counsel could not cross-examine at least on twenty dates of hearing to the witnesses. In view of this situation the petitioner is not entitled for the concession of bail. He further submits that the diseases which have been mentioned in the Medico-legal Certificate is also not injurious to the health of the petitioner because these diseases are normal and can be treated in jail hospital. The petitioner is only twenty-one years young man and enjoying good health.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record it shows that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. Along with his co-accused but it is admitted fact that the two co- accused of the petitioner had been declared innocent during the investigation of this case and only the petitioner was challaned in this case. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is also supported by the Investigating Officer present in the Court. It is also admitted by the parties that the brother of the deceased has also filed a private complaint against the complainant and some other persons in the same matter. The petitioner was arrested on 22-10- 2002 and at the first time the statement of the complainant was recorded on 28-5-2005 after a delay of three years and uptil now only two witnesses have been examined. At this stage because the evidence has been started in the trial I would not like to comment upon the facts of the case but keeping in view the medical report the petitioner is suffering from Hypertension and his diabetes are also un-controlled due to which he is losing his eyesight day by day. Moreover, there is also apprehension that he will also face some heart problems if not treated properly. In such-like situation, I feel that for controlling of suchlike diseases not only the atmosphere but also the diet is necessary which cannot be provided to the petitioner in jail. Keeping in view the health of the petitioner he is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
5. The learned trial Court will continue the proceedings of this case and if in any case the petitioner has disappeared from the trial Court during the trial, the prosecution is at liberty to move for cancellation of his bail. The learned trial Court will also conclude the trial of the petitioner expeditiously preferably within four months.