'ZAFAR IQBAL CHAUDHRY, J.- Through this petition under section 498, Cr.P.C. Nazir Ahmad petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,58 dated 23-3-2008 registered under sections 302/ 109/148/149, P.P.C, at P.S. Wahdat Colony, Lahore on the application of Ch. Nisar Jillani with the allegation that the petitioner while residing in London had made conspiracy with the co-accused on telephone for the murder of Inayat Miran deceased to take revenge for the murder of his father.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been involved in this case with mala fide by the local police; that in fact prior to the occurrence in 1972 father of the petitioner had been murdered by the complainant party and since then the complainant party was inimical towards the petitioner and due to this reason the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case; that admittedly even according to the contents of the F.I.R, the petitioner was out of country in UK and as per allegation the petitioner from UK through telephonic message had made arrangement for the murder of Inayat Miran deceased, but no evidence has been brought on the file to substantiate the allegation; that the petitioner has been wrongly shown as absconder because according to the prosecution own version he was not in country at the time of occurrence; that the petitioner has joined the investigation and is not required for the purpose of investigation of this case, who may be allowed pre-arrest bail as nothing is to be recovered from his possession.
3. Learned D.P.G. Assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant opposes this petition on the ground that the petitioner is named in the F. I. R, who had a motive for the murder of the deceased and he had gone abroad to save his skin from where he made arrangement for this incident; that two witnesses namely Muhammad Iqbal son of Sardar Khan and Nazir Ahmad were only mentioned in the F.I.R. Regarding the abetment of the petitioner and keeping in view sufficient material collected by the prosecution the petitioner is not entitled for pre-arrest bail, who also remained absconder for about 10 years and this fact alone is sufficient for the dismissal of his bail application as he has not produced any proof about his absence from the country before the Investigating Officer.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record it has transpired that the father of the petitioner had been murdered by the complainant party in 1972 and since then there was enmity going on between the parties. Admittedly the petitioner had been residing in UK even before this occurrence. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he had telephonically made conspiracy for the murder of Inayat Miran deceased. Although Nazir Ahmad Khan and Muhammad Iqbal were alleged as witnesses in the F.I.R. Who gave information about the alleged conspiracy, but no source was mentioned about their knowledge of the same. Even there is nothing on the record that as to what measures had been adopted by the complainant party to save the life of the deceased after having received information about the alleged conspiracy, It is also noticed that Muhammad Iqbal was produced before the Investigating Officer on 14-9-1999 and.
Nazir Ahmad on 21-9-1999 respectively after about 1-1/2 years of the alleged occurrence. Even according to their statements before the Investigating Officer Muhammad Iqbal has not levelled any allegation against the petitioner and so far as Nazir Ahmad khan P.W. Is concerned he was inimical towards the petitioner because his real uncle namely Rehmat had been involved in the murder of the father of the petitioner Lal Khan. Subsequently two other witnesses namely Muhammad Jamil and Muhammad Akram who were not mentioned in the F.I.R. Were produced by the complainant before the Investigating Officer in support of allegation of abetment against the petitioner. Statement of Muhammad Jamil under section 161, Cr.P.C. Was recorded on 30-4-1999(13 months after the occurrence) and Muhammad Akram on 14-9-1999 (After 18 months of the occurrence). Keeping in view such a long gap between the occurrence and the statements of the P. Ws. Made before the Investigating Officer the question arises why they kept silent for such a long time. So far as veracity of their evidence is concerned, it will be considered by the trial Court after recording their evidence. So far as the question of absconsion of the petitioner is concerned that is not proved because admittedly the petitioner had been residing abroad even before the occurrence. The allegation against the petitioner is of abetment, but keeping in view the above facts and circumstances the case of the petitioner has become one of further inquiry. He has already joined the investigation as admitted by the Investigating Officer and his person is not required for any recovery. As such sending of the petitioner to jail will not serve any useful purpose for the prosecution. Hence this petition is accepted and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 30-9-2008 is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.
Pre-arrest .