' ABDUL LATIF KHAN, J.---Having failed to secure his release on bail before the learned lower courts, the petitioner has approached this Court for seeking the same relief.
2. Facts as narrated in the F.I.R. Are that on 31-12-2013 at 1835 hours, complainant Gul Nawaz reported the matter to the local police at Civil Hospital, Tank that he alongwith his son Irfanullah after offering sham prayer in the Masjid of Madrasa Islami of village Daraki, came out from the Masjid, the accused Adnan and his father Khan Bad Shah duly armed were standing near the door of Madrasa Islami and on seeing them, started firing at them, vide which his son Irfanullah was hit and he escaped unhurt and his report vide case F.I.R. No,255 dated 31-12-2012 under sections 302/324/34 P.P.C. Was registered at Police Station, Mullazai District Tank.
3. Mr. Muhammad Abdullah Baloch, ,Advocate for the petitioner contended that though the petitioner has been directly charged in the F.I.R. But has not attributed a specific role in respect of his involvement in the crime. He contended that the occurrence took place on 31-12-2012, whereas the statement of alleged eyewitness was recorded on 9-1-2013 i,e, after 11 days, which caused serious doubt to the case of prosecution. He argued that the supplementary statement recorded on 2-1-2013 negates the version of the F.I.R. And the site plan is also not corroborating the prosecution case. He contended that in the circumstances a case of further inquiry is made out and the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.
4. Mr. Sanaullah Shamim Gandapur D.A.-G. Assisted by Mr. Muhammad Yousaf Khan Advocate for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail petition and argued that the petitioner is directly charged in the F.I.R. The crime committed by the petitioner is of heinous nature. It was argued that the petitioner was charged for effective firing and the ocular testimony of eye-witness followed by wilful absconsion of the petitioner connect him with the commission of offence; the offence with which the petitioner is charged, falls under prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr .P.C.
5. Arguments heard and record carefully perused.
6. Section 497, Cr.P.C. Is reproduced below:-- "497. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence.---(1) When any person accused of non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer-in-charge of a police station, or appears or is brought before a Court, he may be released on bail, but he shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or [imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years].
(2) If it appears to such officer or Court at any stage of the investigation, inquiry or trial, as the case may be, that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has admitted a non- bailable offence, but there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt, the accused shall, pending such inquiry, be released on bail, or, at the discretion of such officer or Court, on the execution by him of a bond without sureties for his appearance as hereinafter provided.
The words reasonable ground for believing used by legislature are of vital importance and the same cannot be dealt with lightly in omnibus manner, rather spirit of the law is to be followed strictly with special reference to the words used therein.
7. The discrepancies in the prosecution case to the effect that the F.I.R. Is silent about the kind and nature of weapon used in the commission of offence. Two persons are charged for the commission of offence but no specific role has been attributed to anyone including the petitioner. The supplementary statement recorded on 2-1-2013 reveals that the complainant has introduced .30 bore pistol and China rifle and on the same day the site plan was prepared, wherein two empties of .30 bore pistol were recovered from points Nos.3 and 4, the places where the accused are shown in the site plan. The recovery memo shows the recovery of one empty of .30 bore pistol.
8. The statement of eye-witness was recorded after 11 days without any explanation and recording of the statement of alleged sole eye-witness with such a delay makes a case of serious doubt as the conduct of the P.W. To remain silent for such a long period makes his worth and value as, questionable. The tentative evidence available on file would make a case of further inquiry and the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.
9. Mere heinousness of offence cannot be made as a ground for refusal of bail although the petitioner is directly charged in the F.I.R. But no specific role has been given. No reasonable ground for believing exists in the instant case for refusal of bail in the light of available record, tentatively.
Bail cannot be refused to the accused person if no sufficient material has been brought on record showing reasonable ground to believe that accused is guilty of the offence charged with, punishable for death or life imprisonment or imprisonment for ten years. In case of no reasonable ground to believe, bail cannot be conveniently refused in routine as the liberty of a citizen involved and the same cannot be subjected to the heinousness of the offence or charge of an accused directly in the F.I.R. Moreover, mere B absconsion, if any, in the absence of any incriminating piece of evidence would not disentitle the accused for grant of bail if good ground for bail on merit exists in the case and the accused can be released on bail on the basis of available record and absconsion would not come in the way of the accused for the purpose of bail.
10. In the light of the above circumstances and taking a tentative assessment of the available record, the case of the petitioner requires further inquiry into his guilt. Therefore, by allowing this petition, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail, provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (two lac) with four sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Duty Magistrate, Tank. The sureties must be local, reliable and men of sufficient means.
11. Any observations recorded in this order should in no way prejudice the proceeding during the trial of the case.