Through the instant petition under Section 497 Cr.P.0 petitioner Dildar Bakhsh has sought post arrest bail in case FIR No, 699 registered on 20.2.2009 with Police Station Khangarh Districts Muzaffargarh, for offences under Sections 302/148/149/109 PPC. Relief of bail has been declined to the petitioner by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh, vide order dated 30.10.2009.
2. According to the FIR, lodged by Wasaya, allegation against the petitioner is that he along with other co-accused committed the murder of Abdul Khaliq, complainant's son.
3. Learned counsel for the petitions: submits that the petitioner is not nominated in the FIR; no overt act is attributed to him; deceased Abdul Khaliq was in the custody of the police for the last two days from the date of occurrence; in the post-mortem report cause of his death is not described; the petitioner is behind the bars for the last about 11 months since his arrest i,e, on 9.4.2009. Submits that although challan has been submitted in the Court but charge has not yet been framed; the learned trial Court by observing that the case is fixed for prosecution evidence dismissed the petition, but the learned counsel submits that charge has not been framed so far therefore the question of recording of evidence does not arise. Further submits that two co-accused, namely, Rab Nawaz and Mulazim were declared innocent in the investigation; it is a case of no evidence; nobody saw the occurrence; the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an indefinite period, whereas speedy trial is the right of the accused.
4. On the other hand, learned DDPP has vehemently opposed the bail petition by contending that the offence falls in the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. therefore the petitioner is not entitled for bail. Further submits that the petitioner was implicated in the case by the complainant through his supplementary statement dated 23.3.2009; recovery of weapon of offence, i,e, Soti has been effected from the petitioner.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner is not nominated in the FIR. No overt act or specific role of causing any injury to the deceased is attributed to the petitioner. Although challan under Section 173, Cr.P.C. was submitted before the trial Court on 9.4.2009, yet charge has not been framed in the case, so the observation of the learned trial Court that the case is fixed, for prosecution evidence is not correct. The petitioner was implicated through the supplementary statement dated 23.3.2009, which is belated by one month and three days, which has little evidentiary value. The petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an indefinite period. Speedy trial is the right of the accused. Although Soti has been recovered from the petitioner, yet it has only corroborative value. Nobody saw the alleged occurrence in which Khaliq deceased was killed, which needs further probe and inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner for his participation in the occurrence as his participation is doubtful. Benefit of doubt will also go to the accused even at the bail stage. In the case reported as Tariq Bashir etc. vs. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34), the honorable Supreme Court observed as under: The ultimate conviction and incarceration of a guilty person can repair the wrong caused by as mistaken relief of interim bail granted to him, but no satisfactory reparation can be offered to an innocent man for his unjustified incarceration at any state of the case, albeit his acquittal in the long run."
6. In the light of above discussion, I allow this petition and admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000/- (Rupees two lacs) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.