' CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.---Petitioners Riasat Ali and Abdul Sattar through two separate applications bearing Criminal Miscellaneous No, 3198/B/2009 and Criminal Miscellaneous No,3251/B of 2009 respectively have sought for post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,100 registered under section 364, P.P.C. With Police Station Saddar Karore Pacca on 4-3-2009.
2. As both these petitions are outcome of one and the same case, hence are being disposed of by this single order.
3. Briefly the prosecution case as per the F.I.R. Is that on 12-2-2007 at about 12-00 Noon, Abdul Sattar and others have abducted Mst. Shakoora Bibi, the daughter of the complainant, and her two daughters Ms. Amna Bibi and Ms. Ayesha Bibi and they took them to different places and thereafter murdered them and threw their dead bodies in the canal to cause disappearance of the evidence of their murder to avoid the consequences of their such act.
4. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner Riasat Ali that he has falsely been roped in; that he has nothing do so with the alleged offence; that there is about two years delay in the lodging of the F.I.R. And this inordinate delay heavily suggests that there had been consultations and deliberations on the part of the complainant in the matter and this would make his version doubtful; that in fact the alleged abductee Mst. Shakoora Bibi along with her two daughters named above have gone to her previous husband Muhammad Yaseen and she on 19-2-2007, along with her counsel has made statement before the Family Court at Mian Channu in her petition for execution of the decree to the effect that she had received the entire decretal amount from the judgment debtor (Muhammad Yaseen) and the percept may be filed and this shows that she after the date of alleged incident herself had appeared before Court and at the same time it shows that she neither was abducted as alleged in the F.I.R. Nor taken away against her will; that her said previous husband had brought Writ Petition No, 1247 of 2007 against DPO, Lodhran and others including herself, her father and on 10-4-2007, they appeared in the same and made statement to the effect that no illegal harassm ent is being caused to him i.e. Her pervious husband and the same was dismissed and it again shows that she was not abducted and rather had been appearing before the Courts freely and so the story of the prosecution as contained in the F.I.R. Is not based upon truth and reality; that the complainant during the investigation has sworn an affidavit to the effect that he (petitioner) has no concern with the matter and he so was declared innocent by the Investigating Officer; that he is a retired army personnel and patient of asthma; that the challan stands submitted in the Court and this shows that he is not required for any further purpose of the investigation; and that he is behind the bars and a previous non-convict.
5. On behalf of petitioner Abdul Sattar, almost similar contentions have been raised except the ground of sickness as raised by the side of his abovementioned co-accused Riasat Ali.
6. On the other hand, the learned DPG though has opposed these petitions on the ground that they are named in the F.I.R. With specific allegation against them of abduction of the said woman and her two daughters and having murdered them and throwing their dead bodies in the canal to cause the disappearance of the evidence of their murder but he has conceded that the complainant during the investigation has sworn an affidavit to the effect that petitioner Riasat Ali has no concern with the matter and he so has been declared innocent and similar is the position of petitioner Abdul Sattar as he too has been found not involved in the instant matter and so he was also declared innocent by the police. He has also submitted that on 26-5-2007, Rapat No,22, was recorded with Police Station Chab Kalan, District Khanewal on the statement of one Muhammad Nawaz, a vegetable seller and the same was to the effect that a lady and two girls have jumped into the canal in his presence and according to the Investigating Officer, they might be the missing lady and her two daughters.
7. The Investigating Officer present in Court has submitted that despite his best efforts the dead bodies of the said lady and her two daughters have not been recovered by him.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and perused the record.
9. The fact remains that there is about two years delay in the lodging of the F.I.R. The alleged incident had taken place on 12-2-2007 and the same was reported to the police on 4-3-2009. No doubt, this is a great delay. However, I do not want to much dilate upon this aspect of the matter as it may not be prejudicial to any of the parties at any subsequent stage to come in the case.
However, this great delay casts doubt qua the veracity of the prosecution story. I may say here that benefit of every doubt, even at bail stage, is to be given to an accused. I may also mention here that although the complainant has furnished some explanation in respect of the same in the F.I.R.
But again I would avoid to make any comment on the same as it is hardly desirable or required here.
10. Besides than this, the fact also remains that the complainant during the investigation has sworn an affidavit to the effect that though he has involved accused/petitioner Riasat Ali in the matter of abduction of his daughter and maternal granddaughters but he is now satisfied that he is not so involved. He on the basis of the same has been declared innocent by the police.
11. Petitioner Abdul Sattar has also been found innocent by the Investigating Officer. He has recorded case diary No,22 dated 13-7-2007 to the extent of petitioner Riasat Ali and case diary No,52 of the same date in respect of Abdul Sattar.
12. The learned counsel for petitioner Riasat Ali has submitted the certified copy of the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. According to the same, they have been left to the mercy of the Court. Although the ipse dixit of police is not binding upon Court yet it is a relevant circumstance to be taken into consideration, while deciding the question of bail.
13. Another important aspect of the matter is that the Investigating Officer on query has submitted that he has made his best efforts to trace out the dead bodies of the missing woman and her two daughters but he could not succeed. He has also submitted that the aforementioned Muhammad Nawaz has made Rapat No,22, dated 26-5-2007, with Police Station Chab Kalan to the effect that a woman and two little girls have jumped into the canal in his presence. According to the Investigating Officer present those possibly might be the alleged abductees.
14. There is also with the petition of Riasat Ali, the certified copy of the order, dated 19-2-2007, recorded by the Family Court, Mian Channu. The same shows that the alleged abductee along with her counsel had appeared there on that date and she had made statement in favour of her previous husband Muhammad Yaseen to the effect that she has received the entire decretal amount from him and waived the maintenance allowance of her children in his favour.
15. There is also with this petition the copy of Writ Petition No,1247 of 2007, filed by said Muhammad Yaseen against her and others and in the same she along with others had appeared and they all H made statement that no illegal harassment is being caused to him (Muhammad Yaseen).
16. In view of all these facts of the case, I am of the clear view that it is yet to be ascertained that if they (petitioners) can ultimately be held liable for the alleged offence. Their case, therefore, is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
17. They are behind the bars. The challan against them stands submitted in the Court. This shows that they are no more wanted for any further purpose of the investigation. It is well settled proposition in J criminal administration of justice that when case of an accused may be found fit for bail, he then cannot be detained unnecessarily for a moment even.
18. In this view of the matter, I accept both these bail petitions and admit them to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
19. However, it is hereby clarified that the above observations are tentative in nature and meant only for the disposal of the matter in hand. These shall have no bearing at all on anybody's case at trial.