ORDER CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.---Petitioner Zulqarnain through the instant petition has sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.177 registered under section 302/34, P.P.C. With Police Station Khankah Dogran, District Nankana Sahib on 4-6-2008.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per the F.I.R is that on 4-6-2008 at about 10-15 a.m.. Four persons in a car, out of whom one was having with him.44-bore rifle, had intercepted the car of deceased Farrukh Naeem and he had fired burst with the same at him hitting on the different parts of his body resulting into his instantaneous death.
3.. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, A I find that firstly, he is not named in the F.I.R. Secondly, his name statedly has figured for the first time in the supplementary statement of the complainant shown to have been recorded, on 13-4-2010. It, thus, was almost one year and ten months after the alleged incident.
4. I have found on the police record the statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Of Khalid Pervaiz and Ghulam Mustafa in respect of his extra judicial confession. These were without date underneath the same. The non-mentioning of date underneath their respective statements is very much significant. This is a noticeable fact being an evidence of the above type.
5. It is after case diary. No.40, recorded on 2-12-2010 by Muhammad Yaqoob, S.I. Of the aforesaid Police Station. It may be mentioned here that the copy of the complaint under, section 302/34 P.P.C.
Brought by the complainant against him and others on the same facts is Appended to the petition.
6. In para No.4 of the same, he has mentioned the date of the extra-judicial confession of the accused in this case as 8-4-2010. This apparently was with quite inordinate delay. This delay is spread over more than two years after the alleged incident. Hence, on one hand the belated supplementary statement of the complainant, on 13-4-2010 and on the other such further delayed evidence as mentioned above, has left room for further inquiry into his guilt and so, his case is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
7. His learned counsel has stated at the bar that no summoning order has been passed by the Court concerned in the complaint brought by the complainant and even his trial in the instant case has not commenced. He has also informed that he earlier was involved in two other cases of the type and in one of these, he has been acquitted and in the other bailed Out. However, the learned D.P. -G. Has confirmed that he is a previous non-convict.
8. In these circumstance of the case, I find that the case for his enlargement on bail has been made out.
9. The petition, therefore, is accepted and he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.5,00,000 (Rupees five lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court..