ORDER SH. AHMAD FAROOQ, J.---The instant post arrest bail petition has been filed on behalf of Muhammad Amin, who is behind the bars in a case arising out of F.I.R. No. 180 of 2006, dated 10-8- 2006, registered in Police Station, Raja Jang, Kasur, under sections 302/148/149, P.P.C.
2. Precisely, the allegation against the petitioner levelled by the complainant in the F.I.R. Is that the said petitioner along with his co-accused committed the murder of the father of the complainant, namely, Hassan Muhammad, on 10-8-2006. The complainant alleged that the present petitioner, who was carrying a 244 rifle, fired a bullet which hit Hassan Muhammad on his chest. The remaining co-accused are also alleged to have caused injuries on different parts of body of Hassan Muhammad deceased. The motive for the occurrence as narrated in the F.I.R. Is that the accused demanded the share of their mother out of the inheritance of their maternal grandfather from the deceased.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case due to a dispute regarding the inheritance of the land in question. He further submitted that the co- accused, namely, Zulfiqar, who also allegedly caused injuries to the deceased, has been declared innocent by the police. He argued that the case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of further enquiry. Lastly, he argued that despite two directions of this Court vide order dated 4-3-2008 and 25-5-2010, the trial against the petitioner has not been concluded and the petitioner is behind the bars since 18-12-2006. He contended that the delay in the conclusion of the trial is not attributed to the petitioner.
4. Conversely, the learned D.P.G. Opposed the instant petition, on the plea that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. With a specific allegation of causing murder of father of the complainant/Hassan Muhammad. He further submitted that a rifle .244 bore has been recovered from the petitioner, which prima facie connects him with the commission of the offence, the punishment of which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. However, the learned D.P.-G is unable to rebut the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial of the case has not been concluded within the period granted by this Court through two successive orders dated 4-3-2008 and 25-5-2010.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. A perusal of the record has revealed that the first post-arrest bail petition of the present petitioner was disposed of by this Court, vide order dated 4-3-2008, without touching the merits of the case and a direction was given to the learned trial Court to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible but the same was not done. Thereafter, the present petitioner moved another Criminal Miscellaneous No.3240-B of 2010 for his post-arrest bail, wherein this Court, vide order dated 25-5-2010, directed the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur, to decide the case against the present petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the order of this Court but even then trial has not been concluded so far. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the attested copies of the interim orders of the learned trial Court, which, prima facie, established that the complainant/Maqsoodan Bibi was not appearing before the learned trial Court to get her statement recorded as a witness of the prosecution and as such, the learned trial Court was constrained to declare her as a proclaimed offender, vide order dated 18-8-2010. The petitioner is admittedly behind the bars since 18-12-2006 i.e. For the last about four years and his further detention in jail would not advance the case of the prosecution. Needless to observe that /he post arrest bail cannot be refused to an accused as a measure of advance punishment. The delay in the conclusion of the trial is, prima facie, not attributable or occasioned by an act or omission of the accused. There are also sufficient grounds to enquire further into the guilt of the petitioner, entitling him to be released on bail. Consequently, the instant petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum o Rs.200,000 with one surety, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.