Abid alias Aabu petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No, 211/2011, dated 23.10.2011, in the offences under Sections 302/324/148/149, PPC, Police Station Sohdra District Gujranwala.
2. As per FIR lodged on 23.10.2011 at 1:30 p.m. on the statement of Shafqatullah complainant, it is alleged that the same day at about 11.50 a.m. he along with his real brother Saifullah, Muhammad Saleem, Muhammad Idrees, Ghulam Dastgir and Muhammad Ashraf tractor mechanic were sitting at their Dera on Daska road when suddenly two cars came there wherefrom Luqman Butt, Shahid alias Shahu and Muhammad Akhtar brother-in-law of Muhammad Saleem armed with fire-arms and four unknown persons also armed with fire-arms deboarded and asked about Muhammad Saleem; that complainant's brother Muhammad Saleem introduced himself; that all the seven accused started firing at them; that one fire-shot hit Muhammad Saleem on his left eye, one fire on the left side of his forehead near his nose, one fire shot on his chest three fires hit on his right thigh and one fire shot hit on left hand; that said Muhammad Saleem smeared with blood fell down on the ground and succumbed to the injuries at the spot; that four fire-shots of the accused persons hit Muhammad Ashraf tractor mechanic on his left thigh who was seriously injured; that with the firing of the accused persons one buffalo of the complainant also got injured. Motive for the occurrence was alleged that complainant's, brother-in-law Muhammad ,Saleem had got registered FIR case 371/2009 in the offence under Sections 302/324/452/148/149, PPC at Police Station Civil Lines, Gujranwala wherein accused Luqman's father Muhammad Saleem was sentenced to imprisonment for life and his 'brother Nauman was sentenced to death; that the accused had been pressurizing to effect compromise but failed and on account, of this grudge the accused Luqman and others armed with firearm weapons have killed his brother Muhammad Saleem and injured Muhammad Ashraf tractor mechanic.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the FIR; that he has no concern with the motive alleged in the FIR; that the motive is attributed to the nominated accused persons Luqman etc; that no features/description; estimated height or any other information was provided in the FIR which could be later on helpful for identification of unknown accused persons; that no identification parade was held; that the petitioner is nominated in the supplementary statement of the complainant recorded on 25.10.2011 without disclosing any source of information; that Muhammad Ashraf injured PW has not nominated the petitioner in his statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. on 30.10.2011; that the supplementary statement cannot be equated with FIR; that no recovery is effected from him; that the alleged recovery of pistol .9 MM is fabricated and planted upon him by the police being connived with the complainant; that petitioner's case is on better footings as compared to nominated accused Muhammad Akhtar who has been allowed bail by this Court in Crl. Misc. No, 2823-B/2012.
4. On the other hand, learned DPG for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has resisted the petition with the arguments that the petitioner along with other accused armed with deadly weapons jointly fired resulting into death of Muhammad Saleem and injuries to Muhammad Ashraf tractor mechanic as well as to one buffalo of the complainant; that during police investigation weapon of offence pistol .9 MM has been recovered from the petitioner on his pointation; that the prosecution has sufficient incriminating material against the petitioner to connect him with the alleged occurrence that the petitioner is a hired assassin and habitual criminal nominated in as many as ten cases of like nature; that challan against the accused has been submitted and the case is fixed for prosecution evidence; that there is no mala fide on the part of the complainant to falsely implicate the petitioner.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Petitioner is not nominated in the FIR. No features, description/estimated height or any other relevant information with regard to unknown accused who allegedly participated in the occurrence are provided in the FIR so that the same could be later on helpful for their identification.
It is not alleged that unknown accused were muffled faces. The petitioner along with three other persons was nominated by the complainant Shafaqatullah through his supplementary statement recorded on 25.10.2011 after three days of the occurrence. The said supplementary statement also fails to disclose the source of information with regard to identification or nomination of the petitioner as accused. No identification parade was held. Even in the supplementary statement no specific role or injury is attributed to the petitioner by the complainant. Record also reveals that Muhammad Ashraf injured PW made his supplementary statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. before the police on 30.10.2011 wherein he also did not nominate the petitioner as accused. Therefore supplementary statement of the complainant recorded on 25.10.2011 cannot be relied upon at this stage. Bare reading of the FIR transpires that no motive is alleged by the complainant against the petitioner. Mere recovery of one empty of .9 MM from the place of occurrence and subsequent recovery of pistol .9. MM from the petitioner/accused denied by him cannot be termed as prima- facie incriminating material against the petitioner/accused to connect him with the alleged occurrence at this stage, therefore complicity of the petitioner is necessarily a case of further inquiry. Argument of the learned DPG that the petitioner is a habitual criminal involved in a number of cases of heinous nature has no force to deny he concession of bail he is otherwise entitled to on merits in this case. Reliance be made upon Muhammad Suleman vs Riasat Ali and another (2002 SCM R 1304), Noor Muhammad vs. The State (2008 SCM R 1556) and Sabir Ali alias Fauji vs. The State (2011 SCM R 563).
7. For the above reasons, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000/- (Rupees two lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.