' CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.---Petitioner Imran Yasin by way of the instant petition has prayed for bail after-arrest in case F.I.R. No,65 registered under sections 302/148/149/109, P. P. C . With-Police Station City Jaranwala, District Faisalabad on 23-1-2009. _2.-Briefly the prosecution as per the F.I.R. Is that on 23-1-2009 at about 7-30 P.M. Akhlaq Ahmad, the son of the complainant, was going from his house to the nearby shop to make purchases. He when reached near the shop of Muhammad Asif, there Atif accused along with four unknown persons, armed with firearms, was sitting in ambush. On seeing him, Atif raised Lalkara to teach him lesson for getting made the case of Tauheen-e-Risalat against him. The unknown persons with their arms fired at him. One of the fires hit him (Akhlaq Ahmad) on upper side of his right ear near the head and the same went through and through The curet fire hit him on his left knee and the third on his backside of the right shoulder and he fell down and the accused thereafter fled away while firing. The motive behind the occurrence is that deceased Akhlaq Ahmad had got registered a ease of Tauheen-eRisalat against Ashfaq accused and the same has caused annoyance to the accused, who are his close relatives. It was done by Atif and the four unknown persons at the instance of Abdur Rahman, Nisar, Khadija Anjum and Safia.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that firstly the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. Secondly, according to the same (F.I.R.), four unknown persons armed with firearms had fired at the deceased Akhlaq Ahmad, which hit him in the manner, as narrated above. The prosecution has shown that the same day, i.e, 23-1-2009, complainant Rana Mushtaq Ahmad had made a supplementary statement before the Investigating Officer and he is the same had named him as the person, whose fire had hit the deceased on his head and he had explained that he due to worry had forgot to mention his name in the F.I.R.
4. There cannot be cavil to the proposition that the evidentiary value of a supplementary statement is always open to serious question and the same is to be thrashed at trial.
5. It is also very pertinent to mention here that the complainant initially in the F.I.R. Has very well- mentioned the date, time and venue of the occurrence and that of the unknown accused persons.
It contains very specifically that four unknown persons with their fire-arms had fired at the deceased, which hit him on the above mentioned parts of his body.
6. This also shows that there was specific attribution was from him as regards the hitting of the fires by the unknown persons to the deceased. He, even, had gone to mention that it was at the instance of the above mentioned persons, including the two ladies. This shows that he had had gone to mention all the necessary details relating to the alleged incident.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that he (petitioner) is the resident of that very place, where the incident allegedly had taken place. The complainant, who is present before this Court, when questions about the same, has answered in the affirmative. It so, appears that he has specifically mentioned the names of all the persons to whom he knew. The petitioner is the resident of his Mohallah. So, it is ex facie quite improvable that he at the time of writing of his application for registration of the case had forgotten to mention his (petitioner) name in the same (F.I.R.). In the case of Noor Muhammad v. The State (2008 SCM R 1556), the august Supreme Court of Pakistan, in similar circumstances, when the accused was not named in the F.I.R., and later on the same day by way of a supplementary statement before the Investigating Officer, his name was brought forth and implicated with the commission of the offence, had been pleased to observe that the complainant had taken altogether a U-turn from his previous stand and this fact had made the case of accused one of further inquiry into his guilt. It has also been observed by their lordships in that case that the complainant in such supplementary statement has not explained that how he came to know the name of the accused later on.
8. I have the least hesitation to say here that the case of the petitioner exactly is identical to that accused in the aforementioned case as regards this particular aspect of the matter. Therefore, such view of the august Supreme Court in such situation is applicable herein.
9. It has been argued by the prosecution side that the recovery of weapon of offence stood effected from him and the role of the complainant assigned to him in the supplementary statement stood corroborated by the medical evidence. As observed earlier that when there is no mention of his name in the F.I.R. And his name has figured in the supplementary statement of the complainant without there being any disclosure in regard to the fact how he had come to know of his name later on and particularly, when he had mentioned all the necessary details in the F.I.R., there is room to entertain doubt as regards his culpability in the matter. So, the said contention is of no much avail to the prosecution at such a stage. Another important fact, which is available from the record, is that all the other accused nominated in the F.I.R., have been acquitted by the learned trial Court under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. And it was mainly on the consideration that they during the investigation were found innocent and their names placed in Column No,2 of the report submitted under section 173, Cr.P.C.
10. This shows that the whole case of the complainant as contained in the F.I.R., has been set at naught, firstly by such finding of the police regarding their innocence in the matter and secondly their acquittal by the learned trial Court under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. All these factors have led me to the belief of scope of further inquiry into this guilt and so, his case is covered under subsection
(2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
11. He is stated to be behind the bars for the last about one year and a month and previous non- convict.
12. It has also been informed that his trial has commenced. In the case of Muhammad Ismail v.
Muhammad Rafique (1989 SC 585), it has been held that mere commencement of trial, particularly, when the case of an accused becomes of further inquiry into his guilt, the same cannot come as clog in his way to such relief. As in such situation accused becomes entitled to bail, as of right and not mere grace and so, is not be detained unnecessarily for a moment even.
13. In this view of the matter I accept this petition and admit him to bail in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
14. I may observe here that the above observations are tentative in nature and meant only for the disposal of the case in hand alone. This in any case shall not prejudice the mind of the learned trial Court in the final decision of the case.
15. However, the learned trial Court is also directed to expedite the conclusion of his trial as early as possible, under intimation to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.