MEHMOOD MAQBOOL BAJWA, J. - Post-arrest bail is being sought by the petitioner in case F.I.R. No. 275 of 2011 registered under Section 302 read with Section 34 of The Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Green Town, Lahore.
2. Crime Report was lodged by one Aslam Bhatti with the allegation against unknown accused that on the intervening night of 1st and 2nd April of 2011, said assailants four in number committed Qatl- i-Amad of Dhuman Bhatti.
3. Heard.
The learned counsel for the petitioner maintained that petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R, who was implicated by way of supplementary statement having no legal sanctity. Pleading false implication and highlighting the background, it was argued that the petitioner was taken in illegal custody by the police on 18.06.2011, prompting his wife to approach this Court by filing habeas petition and as per report of bailiff though the petitioner was confined but his formal arrest was not shown who was roped in the case with malice-in-fact. Further argued that no identification test was held. Referring to alleged recovery of pistol and crime empties it was maintained that said recovery which even otherwise was planted upon in the absence of positive report of Forensic Science Laboratory cannot advance plea of prosecution. Making reference to the conduct and character of deceased, it was submitted that involved in so many cases had enmity with many persons not ruling of his murder by any of his enemy.
Opposing the application, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General as well as learned learned Deputy counsel for the complainant submitted that though, the petitioner was implicated by way of supplementary statement but in the absence of any motive or bias, nothing can be said regarding false implication of the petitioner. Referring to litigation between the petitioner and the deceased regarding plot, it was argued that at the instance of the petitioner stamp paper regarding plot, leaf of cheque, cheque book stained with blood having finger impression was recovered, sufficient to connect the petitioner in the offence, falling within the prohibitory clause.
4. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R, who was implicated by way of supplementary statement.
Evidentiary value of supplementary statement as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the strength of case-law is always subject to legal exception but this fact by itself is not sufficient to grant premium to the petitioner.
Statements of Muhammad Razzaq Butt, Irfan Shabhir recorded under Section 161 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 on 03.04.2011, implicating the petitioner suggesting the witnessing of occurrence in their view, recovery of 30 bore pistol on the pointation of petitioner, call data of the mobile phone of deceased suggesting conversation of deceased with petitioner, recovery of cheque No. 6373169 in a sum of Rs. 9,40,000/-, dated 03.01.2011, issued by the petitioner in favour of the deceased, agreement to sell executed by deceased in favour of petitioner, used cheque book of Soneri Bank stained with blood, and finger impression and partial positive report of Forensic Science Laboratory dated 17.10.2011 regarding matching of laten prints collected from death scene (Items Nos. 1 to 3) with brown inked prints (Item Nos. 4 and 5) of the petitioner are sufficient to suggest reasonable ground for believing the petitioner is involved in an offence falling within prohibitory clause disentitling him to have the premourn of post-arrest bail.
5. Pursuant to above discussion application for post-arrest bail is hereby rejected. Bail after arrest refused.