' SYED MUHAMMAD KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, J.---Rizwan Zafar petitioner seeks his release on bail in case F.I.R. No,600, dated 25-10-2011, registered under sections 302, 109, 148 149, P.P.C. With Police Station Batapur, Lahore.
2.. As per contents of the F.I.R. One Muhammad Younas has lodged a criminal case against the complainant Muhammad Abdullah, his father Bashir and cousin Muhammad Akram at Police Station Batapur and on 25-10-2011 at about 11-30 a.m. When they were returning to Jallo More after appearing in the Court, three persons came from their rear side and started beating Bashir Ahmad and Akram. These persons were identified by the complainant and his `Taya' Bashir and Akram and when they reached near them Asghar Ali, Jamat Ali and Shahzad alias Jeera made fires. Asghar's fire hit on the chest of Bashir Ahmad while the fire of Jamat Ali landed at Akram's chest. The complainant and his `Taya' had witnessed the occurrence taking refuge behind the trees when they saw that Muhammad Younas, Ameer Ali and Nisar Ahmed along with two unknown persons reached there and started indiscriminate firing upon Bashir Ahmad and Akram. As a result of the firing, Bashir Ahmad and Akram lost their lives. The motive for the -occurrence statedly was criminal litigation between the parties. On this report F.I.R. Has been lodged against the nominated as well as two unknown persons at the relevant Police Station.
3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that admittedly the petitioner is not named in the crime report nor his description has been cited therein. According to the learned counsel the petitioner was introduced in the instant case on 3-2-2012 through a supplementary statement but in that statement also no specific role of causing any injury to the deceased persons has been attributed to him. Added further that six nominated accused persons have been declared by the Police as not involved in the occurrence and in this respect a private criminal complaint was lodged in the Court without naming the present petitioner. He has raised his eye brow over the institution of amended private criminal complaint wherein the petitioner has been named but without any specific role. According to the learned counsel in the amended complaint till date the cursory evidence has not been recorded. He termed the case of the petitioner as one covered by the provisions of section 497(2), Cr.P.C., thus prayed for the grant of bail.
4. The petition has been opposed by the learned DPG, assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant who has laid much stress over the number of deceased as well as, injuries received by them. He submitted that two deceased persons had received 21 injuries, and the recovery of pistol .9 mm at the instance of the petitioner supports this fact that the petitioner had also caused injuries to the deceased because 4 empties of pistol .9 mm were collected from the place of occurrence. According to the learned counsel the petitioner was duly identified by the P. Ws, in the identification parade thus participation of the petitioner in the occurrence is duly supported by the statements of the P.Ws. As Well as 'medical evidence. He prayed for the dismissal of the bail application.
5. Parties heard and record perused.
6. It is not denied by the prosecution that two unknown persons had also participated in the occurrence and that the petitioner was introduced A in the case through a supplementary statement. The legal value of the supplementary statement recorded by the Police has been discussed by the Apex Court in the case of Khalid Javed and another v. The State (2003 SCAM 1419) by saying that the time and date of recording such statement is to be established beyond any shadow of doubt as in the absence of such proof there would 'be chance of false implication of a person in the criminal case, that too after deliberation and consultation. IB In the instant case the occurrence had taken place on 25-10-2011 whereas the supplementary statement has been recorded on 3-2-2012 with a delay of about three months, thus there is every possibility that the name of the petitioner has been introduced in the Case after due deliberation and consultation.
This fact gets further support from the admission of the complainant made in the F.I.R. That the complainant party had animosity of murders. Similarly, the identification parade conducted on 9- 2-2012,in the presence of the supplementary statement recorded on 3-2-2012 lost its efficacy as the parade was conducted after the nomination of the petitioner in the case. It is also noticed with great concern that no specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner, which he caused either of the deceased persons and resulted into his death. According to the prosecution Asghar Ali and Jamat Ali opened the fire at the chest of the deceased person, who fell on the ground, whereafter the other assailants including the petitioner resorted to indiscriminate firing. Which fire was of the present petitioner and whether it proved fatal to the life of the deceased is the matter of evidence, which would be taken care of by the Court seized with the matter. By. The declaration of innocence, in respect of six nominated accused, by the Police the story of the prosecution has come under clouds regarding the participation of D the petitioner in the occurrence. The examination of the case from all angles tentatively leads to a conclusion that the guilt of the petitioner needs to be determined and the case squarely falls within the ambit of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. To my mind the petitioner is entitled for the concession of bail.
7. In view of the above, instant petition is allowed and Rizwan Zafar petitioner is admitted to bail on furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs,100,000 (Rupees One lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.