' SYED IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---The petitioner Muhammad Shaukat has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,140 of 2011 dated 25-2-2011 registered under section 302/109/148/149 at Police Station Gujjarpura, Lahore.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had abetted the murder of one Qasim alias Kashi, nephew of the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the case against the petitioner is false and fictitious one; that he has been falsely implicated in this case due to previous enmity; that no time and place of the alleged abetment has been mentioned in the F.I.R.; that the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence; that no overt act has been attributed to him; that he has been involved in this case with mala fide intention and ulterior motive; that the case of the petitioner falls within the purview of further inquiry as such he is entitled to the concession of bail. Relies on 2003 YLR 3255 (Lahore) titled Ghulam Murtaza v. The State" and "2009 SCM R 786 (Supreme Court of Pakistan) titled Mst. Noor Habib v. Saleem Raza and others" and an unreported judgment passed by this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No,8292-B of 2011.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this petition and contended that two independent witnesses have supported the version of the complainant; that the petitioner is not only an abettor but also he had given command to his co-accused who are his close relatives for the murder of the nephew of complainant; that the petitioner is fully involved for hatching conspiracy, therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned D.P.-G. The State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant and also perused the record.
6. Allegedly, on 25-2-2011 at about 2-00 p.m. Accused Arshad, Bilal, Muhammad Tariq and Muhammad Jamil along with two unknown accused fired at Qasim alias Kashi with their respective weapons, who succumbed to the injuries. It is alleged in the F.I.R. That two persons Shahid and Amir told the complainant that the present petitioner had abetted his co-accused to kill Kashi and the murder has been committed at his behest.
7. This is the second bail application of the petitioner. First bail petition was withdrawn on 4-8-2011.
It is admitted fact that the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence and no overt act has been attributed to him except that of being conspirator of the occurrence. According to the F.I.R., on 25-2-2011 at about 2-15 p.m., Amir and Shahid came at the house of the complainant and informed him that Shaukat Ali was present at his Daira along with Arshad alias Soni, Muhammad Jamil, Bilal, Muhammad Tariq and two unknown persons and they were saying to kill Kashi on the same day. The complainant along with Mansha and Shahid being anxious went to see his nephew Qasim alias Kashi where he saw the aforesaid accused persons firing at his nephew. It is admitted fact that the parties were inimical to each other prior to this occurrence. A trend has been developed in our society to widen net in order to involve the whole family by attributing different roles like Lalkara, Japha, ineffective firing and abettor. The question of abetment can only be thrashed out after recording evidence during trial and a bail cannot be withheld as a matter of punishment when otherwise the petitioner becomes entitled to the concession of bail on the ground of case being one of further inquiry. The role assigned to the present petitioner is of mere abettor. He is behind the bars from last four months and his person is not more required for further investigation. No useful purpose can be served for further detaining the petitioner in jail.
8. Therefore, the petition in hand in allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,200,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.