' SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, J.--- Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner Mubeen Nawaz has sought his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,782 of 2011 dated 4-8-2011 under sections 302, 34, 201 P.P.C. (section 34, P.P.C. Was deleted and section 201, P.P.C. Was added later on) registered at Police Station B,Division District Sheikhupura.
2. Briefly, the prosecution case mentioned in the F.I.R. Is that Muhammad Shoaib son of the complainant did not return back from the mosque after offering Taravih prayers due to which complainant along with witnesses went to the mosque and saw that an altercation was going on between Muhammad Shoaib son of the complainant and Tariq son of Soofi Akram and the petitioner. Within the view of the complainant Tariq fired from his pump action gun, hitting deceased Shoib who fell down and subsequently, died in the hospital.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that ...According to the F.I.R., petitioner was not even armed with any weapon and no overt act is attributed to the petitioner and only presence of the petitioner is shown at the place of occurrence. Further contends that the police deleted section 34, .P.P.C. And added section 201, P.P.C. To the extent of the petitioner which is bailable.
4. On the other hand, learned DPP assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed this petition by contending that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. And he was a party during the scuffle. Further contends that the charge was framed and opinion of the police regarding deletion of section 34, P.P.C. And adding of section 201, P.P.C. Is inadmissible in evidence.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. Admittedly, in the F.I.R. No role is attributed to the petitioner. He was not even shown to be armed with any weapon, due to which case of the petitioner calls for further inquiry falling under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. The police has also deleted offence under section 34, P.P.C.
And added Section 201, P.P.C. Against the petitioner which is bailable. Although, opinion of the police is not binding on the courts but while dealing with the bail petitions such opinion has some persuasive value. The petitioner was arrested on 13-8-2011 and nothing was recovered from him during investigation. His person is no more required by the police for the purpose of investigation.
His further incarceration in jail would not serve any useful purpose.
7. Consequently, the petition in hand is accepted and the petitioner Mubeen Nawaz is enlarged on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 with two sureties in the like amount the satisfaction of learned trial Court.