Through this petition under Section 497, Cr.P.C. Muhammad Zohaib petitioner has sought post- arrest bail in case FIR No, 327/12, dated 30.06.2012 registered at Police Station Sadar Duniyapur, District Lodhran in respect of offences under Sections 302/148/149, PPC.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been roped by the complainant in this case with mala fide intention and ulterior motive.
The petitioner ' is not named in the FIR which was got registered on 30.06.2012 but later on after due deliberations and consultations the complainant got recorded his supplementary statement on 14.07.2012 and involved the present petitioner in this case. According to the supplementary statement only allegation against the petitioner is that he has taken away cell phone of the deceased. No injury is attributed to the present petitioner on the person of the deceased. The cell phone has not been recovered from the present petitioner during the investigation of this case. The petitioner is previous non-convict, he was arrested on 18.07.2012 and since then he is behind the bars, the investigation of this case is complete, the person, of the petitioner, is no more required for further investigation, therefore, his continuous incarceration in jail would not serve any beneficial purpose at this stage.
3. On the other hand the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed this bail petition on the grounds that there is absolutely no malice of the complainant to falsely involve the present petitioner in this case. The petitioner was duly - nominated by the complainant through supplementary on 14.07.2012 in which a specific role has been attributed to the present petitioner. The present petitioner is vicariously liable in this case and during the investigation weapon of offence, i,e, pistol has been recovered from the present petitioner which has been used by co-accused Hamid during the occurrence. During the investigation the petitioner has been found guilty by the Investigating Officer. The offence with which the petitioner is charged falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. There is absolutely no mala fide on the part of the complainant to falsely implicate the petitioner in this case. The petitioner has recently been sent to judicial lock-up. Challan has been submitted and if the petitioner is granted bail the case of the prosecution would be prejudice.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record 'of this case.
This is bail after arrest, therefore without going into deeper appreciation of evidence it is noticed that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and later on he has been involved through supplementary statement of the complainant on 14.07.2012 in which the only role attributed to the present petitioner that he has taken away cell phone of the deceased. Even otherwise no injury is attributed to the present petitioner as far as deceased is concerned. Co-accused Muhammad Hamid has already been allowed bail by this Court vide order dated 17.11.2012. Cell phone alleged to have taken away by the petitioner has not been recovered from him during the investigation of this case. So far as the involvement of the petitioner through supplementary statement of the complainant is concerned suffice it to observe here that the same ground is not sufficient to refuse bail to the petitioner if otherwise his case for bail is made out. Similarly submission of challan is also no ground to refuse bail. Reliance is placed on 2011 SCM R 161. Admittedly the petitioner is previous non-convict, never involved in any criminal case. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 18.07.2012, since then he is behind the bars, he is previous non-convict, the investigation qua the petitioner is complete and his person is no more required by the police for the purpose of further investigation, therefore, his further incarceration in jail would not serve any beneficial purpose at this stage.
6. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest 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.