'HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.---Through this petition, petitioner Muhammad Khalid so of Malik Muhammad seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,344/2008 dated 26-9-2008 registered at Police Station City Mian Channun, District Khanewal, under sections 302, 392, 34, P.P.C. At the instance of Noor Ali, complainant, respondent No,2.
2. Brief facts of the case as alleged by the complainant in his statement are that his son, namely, Naseeb Ali is residing with his family in Chak No,82/15.L and used to pick up the passengers on his motorcycle No,3867/VRL Super Power Colour red Model 2007 for different areas. At 4/5 P.M. Naseeb Ali, son, along with Shabbir Hussain son of Muhammad Sharif, Muhammad Akram son of Muhammad were present when two unknown passengers came to Naseeb Ali and requested to go to 59-Pull, Rs,40 as fair was settled between them. But at late night Naseeb Ali son did not come back home he along with the witnesses searched Naseeb Ali but in vain. On the same day, at 8-00 p.m. a telephonic call was received that one dead body was lying in Mian Channu. When he along with the witnesses reached Civil Hospital, Mian Channu where he found the dead body of Naseeb Ali whose hands are tied back and both foots are also tie and his neck was tied with the string of the shalwar. Hence, this. F.I.R. Later on, the complainant nominated the petitioner in supplementary statement after more than 2 months from the alleged occurrence.
3. Petitioner applied for post-arrest bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mian Channu, who vide order dated 17-10-2009 refused to grant bail to the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it was a blind murder; petitioner is innocent- and has falsely been implicated in this case through supplementary statement; there is no direct evidence against the petitioner on the police file; further submits that he is not nominated in the F.I.R; later on, in second supplementary statement recorded on 20-11-2008 after near about two months of the occurrence the complainant implicated the petitioner and his wife namely Fazelat Bibi and his daughter Naeem Bibi and two unknown persons; further submits that in the first supplementary statement which was recorded on 3-10-2008 petitioner was not nominated. Three persons, namely, Muhammad Akram, Samina Parveen and Rab Nawaz were nominated in the first supplementary statement dated 3-10-2008, who were declared innocent during the investigation on 30-10-2008; further contends that it was a blind murder; no recovery was effected of any sort from the petitioner although the petitioner remained for 14 days on physical remand with the Investigating Officer; petitioner was arrested on 5-3-2008 and was sent to judicial lockup on 20-3- 2009 since that petitioner is behind the bar; he is no more required for any investigation or recovery; petitioner was arrested on the basis of suspicion and petitioner filed Habeas Petition before the Sessions Judge, Khanewal in which learned Additional Sessions Judge recommended proceedings against the Investigating Officer under Article 155(c) of Police Order 2002; that whole case revolves around the last seen evidence narrated in the supplementary statement which is a week type of evidence.
5. On the other hand, learned DDPP assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that case falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr .P.0 . ; the sufficient material on the police file in the shape of statement of P.Ws. To connect the petitioner with the commission of offence, therefore petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
7. Petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. It was unseen occurrence. No direct evidence is collected by the complainant against the petitioner. In the first supplementary statement three persons were involved, who are declared innocent and in the second supplementary statement which was recorded on 20-11-2008. After near about two months petitioner was implicated along with his wife and his daughter Fazelat as such three versions of this case first of all in F.I.R, second in the first supplementary statement, third in the supplementary statement in all different version narrated by the complainant makes the case of further inquiry which needs more investigation into the guilt of the accused petitioner, only last seen evidence is collected through supplementary statement which is a week type of evidence. No recovery of weapon of offence or other sort is recovered from the petitioner. It is also found by the Investigating Officer that prosecution could not collect solid proof of involvement of the petitioner his daughter and wife. As far as the plea of the petitioner that he is involved in this case on account of his filing Habeas Petition against the appellant under section 491, Cr.P.C. Before the learned Justice of Peace, Khanewal is not acceptable as the petitioner was implicated through supplementary statement dated 20-11-2008 prior to his filing petition under section 491, Cr.P.C. This plea does not appear reasonable.
8. Resultantly, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However, observations made above are tentative in nature, will not prejudice the case of either side during the trial.