' ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.---Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. Muhammad Ahmad alias Sohna petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No. 262 of 2011, dated 27-11-2011 registered at Police Station Mochi Gate, Lahore for offences under sections 302/34/109, P.P.C.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and he has been roped in this case by the complainant with mala fide intention and ulterior motive after joining hands with the local police. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. So no role has been ascribed to him therein. Even the complainant has got recorded supplementary statement wherein he has not mentioned the name of the petitioner. The petitioner has been involved on the statement of co- accused Kashif on 9-12-2011 who has already been allowed bail. As the petitioner was involved in this case on the disclosure of main accused Kashif, thus, there was no need of identification parade which )was only held just to strengthen the case of the prosecution. Even in his statement Kashif has not assigned any role to the petitioner regarding infliction of injury to the deceased. The investigation of this case is complete, the petitioner is not involved in any other case he is behind the bars since 9-12-2011 and now almost more than ten months have elapsed his trial has not seen any substantial progress. Law is settled that nobody could be kept behind the bars for an indefinite period.
3. On the other hand the learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant after going through the record oppose this bail petition on the ground that there is absolutely no malice on the part of the complainant to falsely implicate the petitioner in this case. Had the complainant nourished any grudge or against the petitioner he would have straightaway nominated him in this case. The present petitioner was rightly picked during test identification parade held in this case. The petitioner was found present during the occurrence and afterward he had facilitated his co-accused in escaping from the scene of the crime on motorcycle after committing murder of the deceased, therefore, he is vicariously liable for the offence committed by his co-accused. During the investigation of this case the petitioner has been found guilty of the offence. The offence with which the petitioner is charged falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Charge has been framed and trial is in progress and at this stage if the petitioner is allowed post-arrest bail the case of the prosecution would be prejudiced.
4. Arguments heard, record perused.
5. This is bail after arrest and only tentative assessment is required at this stage according to which it has been noticed by this Court that neither the petitioner is named in the F.I.R..Nor his name has been introduced by the complainant in his supplementary statement made before the police on 28-11-2011 but the petitioner is involved in this case on the statement of his co-accused namely Kashif who has already been allowed bail by the learned trial Court A on 7-9-2012. Law is quite settled on the point that statement of an accused person against his co-accused is very weak type of evidence which cannot be taken into consideration until or unless finds support from any other independent source. Another co-accused namely Muhammad Ahmad alias Maula has also been allowed bail by this Court vide order dated 11-6-2012. Admittedly the present petitioner has not been attributed any injury to the deceased and merely his presence at the place of occurrence at the relevant time has been shown. The only allegation levelled by the prosecution against the petitioner is that he has taken away his co-accused on motorcycle from the scene of the crime after the occurrence. No weapon was recovered from him. The vicarious liability of the petitioner with his co-accused would be determined by the learned trial court at the time of trial after recording of some evidence. The investigation of this case is complete, the petitioner is behind the bars for the last ten months and no prosecution witness has yet got recorded his statement before the learned trial Court.
6. For what has been discussed above the case against the .Petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with two 'sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.