Through this petition, the petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 1156 of 2006 dated 25.10.2006, for offences under Sections 396, 302 and 412 PPC registered at Police Station Factory Area, Lahore Cant.
2. The brief facts of the case are that some unknown persons committed the murder of the brother of the complainant, whereupon the aforementioned F.I.R. was lodged.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the F.I.R. it was shown that some unknown persons had committed the, murder of the deceased and the petitioner had been nominated in the supplementary statement made by the complainant on the next day of the occurrence on information received from Muhammad Bashir and Rahmat Ullah, who purportedly had seen the occurrence taking place and since there was no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding recording of a supplementary statement, as such the same had no evidentiary value and was, therefore, of no consequence; that the said witnesses, on whose information the supplementary statement had been recorded did not lodge report with the police or inform the complainant immediately after the occurrence; that even in the supplementary statement it was not alleged that the petitioner had caused any injury to the deceased; that during investigation nothing had been recovered from the petitioner; that the petitioner was behind the bars for the last about eleven months and that the co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Muhammad Nadeem has been allowed bail by this Court vide order dated 3.5.2007 in Crl. Misc. No, 2749-B/2007, therefore, keeping in view the rule of consistency the petitioner is also entitled to the same concession.
4. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General appearing on behalf of the State contended that the petitioner was nominated in the supplementary statement and during investigation, he was found to be fully implicated in the case by the police; that a mobile phone and Rs, 1,500/- had been recovered from the petitioner, therefore, his case was distinguishable from his co-accused; that after completion of investigation challan had been submitted and that the offences mentioned in the FIR were hit by the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to be released on bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R. which was lodged against some unknown persons for committing the murder of Muhammad Nawaz, the brother of complainant. On the following day, the complainant got a supplementary statement recorded, wherein he nominated the petitioner and others as accused who had murdered his brother on the basis of information received from Muhammad Bashir and Rahmat Ullah, PWs. The said witnesses did not report the matter to the complainant although, as per the contents of the F.I.R., the complainant was following the deceased at some distance and had reached the spot shortly after the occurrence. The prosecution version as narrated in the F.I.R. as well as the supplementary statement, therefore, does not appeal to reason. Even in the supplementary statement it is not mentioned that the petitioner had caused any injury to the deceased. I agree with the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code pertaining to recording of a supplementary statement which, even otherwise, has no evidentiary value and cannot be equated with the F.I.R. The argument advanced by the learned Deputy Prosecutor General that a mobile phone and Rs, 1,500/- have been recovered from the petitioner and, therefore, his case is distinguishable from his co-accused has no merit inasmuch as there is no allegation of the petitioner having taken away a mobile phone of the deceased which even otherwise is of ordinary make. During the investigation of weapon was recovered from the petitioner who is behind the bars for the last about eleven months and is not required by the police for investigation. Further incarceration of the petitioner at this stage would not serve any useful purpose and would amount to punishing him without a trial. Moreover, the co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Muhammad Nadeem has been allowed bail by this Court vide order dated 3.5.2007 in Crl. Misc. No, 2749-B-07, therefore, keeping in view the principle of consistency the petitioner deserve the same concession.
7. 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, 2,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.