' SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.---The learned counsel seeks post-arrest bail of the petitioner in F.I.R.
No. 40, dated 3-2-2007. The said F.I.R. Was registered under sections 302, 109 and 34, P.P.C., at P.S. Tirkhani, District Faisalabad.
2. Briefly, according to the F.I.R., the complainant's son, Noor Ullah alias Saeed had come from Faisalabad with whom the complainant went to see his brother, Abdul Majid at his residence. At, about 9-30 p.m, a knock was heard at the door, whereupon, the deceased opened the door.
Accused, Munir pulled him out by collar Upon hue and cry, the complainant and his brother Abdul Majid, etc. Also came out of the house. They witnessed in the light of electric tube accused Munir Ahmad was hitting deceased with iron rod, the deceased fell on the ground, upon which, co- accused Abdul Majid and Shah Nawaz armed with churris, severed his both ears. Co-accused Shah Nawaz also cut the nose and both lips of the deceased. They also inflicted several injuries on different parts of the body of deceased. The accused left the scene of occurrence while brandishing their respective weapons of offence. The motive of the above gruesome and gory occurrence was illicit relationship of deceased with the sister of named accused Munir and Abdul Majid. Prior to this occurrence, the named accused Abdul Majid had also murdered his sister.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R., his name was disclosed by the complainant after five days of registration of the F.I.R. In a supplementary statement. According to him, the petitioner has 'no reason or motive to commit the offence of abetment as alleged in the supplementary statement.
4. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General, Punjab, assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioner has been named in the supplementary statement.
According to which, the plan to kill the deceased was designed in the Baithak of the petitioner which was duly executed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Deputy Prosecutor General, Punjab assisted by the learned counsel for the, complainant. I have given my serious thoughts to the respective contentions on both sides. No doubt, the occurrence narrated in the F.I.R.
Is horrifying and chilling. However, while passing a judicial decision, the Court has to detach itself from the emotions and jitters created by the documents or narration of the events by the parties.
The facts and circumstances of the present case are that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R.
And the supplementary statement was recorded after five days. The above delay is not explainable in the facts and circumstances and record of this case. Even the said statement does not disclose on which date and at what time conspiracy was hatched and what was the motive which drew the petitioner into alleged conspiracy.
6. The supplementary statement, in the circumstances, like in the present case, should be viewed with caution. The petitioner has no relations with the co-accused who are directly involved in this occurrence. No incriminating material is available to demonstrate reason for his involvement as abettor. No recovery, of any kind, has been effected from him. The witnesses of the abetment story are close relatives, i.e.. Uncles, of the complainant. They have tried to make up deficiencies in supplementary statement, through their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. Regarding date and time of the conspiracy. The petitioner was arrested on 2-3-2007, so far, only three formal witnesses have been examined.
7. Section 497, Cr.P.C. Is divided into two parts. The first part deals with the offences which are not covered by the prohibitory clause, whereas, the second part deals with the offences which are covered by the prohibitory clause i.e. The offences that provide death sentence, life imprisonment or imprisonment for 10 years and above. Bail is normally granted if offence falls in the 1st category.
However, the instant F.I.R. Has been recorded in the offences which fall within the second part of section 497, Cr.P.C. Nevertheless, in the second part, bail may be allowed if there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry.
8. The above discussion and reasons provide sufficient grounds for further inquiry into guilt of the petitioner. Thus, this bail application is allowed subject to petitioner's furnishing surety bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000 in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court or area Magistrate.
However, before I part with this order, the learned trial Court is directed to make all the efforts to finalize the trial as soon as possible.