' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.--Manasab Ali (petitioner) seeks bail before-arrest in case-F.I.R. No,315/2012 dated 24-5-2012, registered for offences under sections 302, 324, 109, 34, P.P.C., at Police Station City Arifwala (Pakpattan Sharif).
2. Precisely, the prosecution case, as narrated by Ghulam Qadir (complainant) is that his son Abdul Razzaq along with his pupil Muhammad Asif, moved towards the shop of his son on 24-5-2012; when they reached the metalled road, they were attacked by Muhammad Ashraf, Naveed, both armed with pistols .30-bore and Tanveer; the fire-shots made by Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Asif, deflated his son to the ground, in a bad injured condition; Abdul Razzaq succumbed to the injuries at a hospital in Sahiwal; the back, which was felt ill by accused.
3. The complainant moved a written application before the Investigating Officer on 9-7-2012 with the contention that a few days prior to the occurrence Majid Ali Sheikh and Manasab Ali Kali (petitioner), while chatting. With Muhammad Ashraf, Tanveer and Naveed accused, induced them to murder Abdul Razzaq, so as to avenge their insult; they made a promise that they would take care of the matter and make sure that the police would not catch them; Abdul Razzaq had been murdered by the accused on the abetment of Sajid Ali and Manasab Ali (petitioner); Akbar Ali Shah and Muhammad Haneef are the witnesses of abetment, who rendered statements against the petitioner on 9-7-2012.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case due to malice and ulterior motives of the complainant;- it is a case of no evidence against the petitioner and charge against him is patently false; Akbar Ali Shah, a witness of abetment, is an eye-witness of the occurrence, who recorded a statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Before the Investigating Officer on 24-5-2012 but did not utter even a single word against the petitioner; the other witness Muhammad Hanif did not offer any explanation, as to why he kept silent for a long period of time before joining the investigation; lastly submits that the petitioner's case balls for further probe into his guilt, hence, he may be saved from the conspiracy of the complainant and his witnesses.
5. On the Wei hand, learned Addl: Prosecutor-General Punjab opposes with the contention that two witnesses namely Akbar Ali Shah and Muhammad Haneef support the charge of abetment; the complainant or his witnesses are not inimical to the petitioner, nor they involved him in this case falsely; the petitioner was found guilty during the course of investigation and placed in Column No,3 of the challan.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that the allegation against the petitioner is merely that of abetment, which surfaced on the record, for the first time on 9-7-2012, when the complainant rendered a written supplementary statement before the Investigating Officer with the contention that the accused-petitioner joined by his co-accused held a conspiratorial chat with his co-accused, Muhammad Ashraf, Tanveer and Naveed, a few days before the occurrence of murder, which was overheard by the witnesses Akbar Ali Shah and Muhammad Hanif. It is a crucial fact that Akbar Ali Shah is an eye-witness, who firstly joined investigation on 24-5-2012 and rendered a statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Qua the factum of having witnessed the occurrence, but he did not utter even a single word against the petitioner or his co accused about the allegation of abetment. Muhammad Haneef, another witness of the same set also remained inordinately tacit before joining the investigation and recording his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. On 9-7-2012. The subsequent written statement of the complainant is also silent about the fact, as to why he took so long to nominate the petitioner as an abettor of the occurrence alleged. His delayed supplementary statement as well as those of the above-named witnesses of abetment, do not offer any explanation as to the unconscionable and inordinate delay occurred/involved. Learned Addl: Prosecutor-General Punjab, after going through the record submits that the date and time, as to alleged hatching-up of the conspiracy by the petitioner and his co-accused has not been disclosed by any of the witnesses. It remains shrouded in mystery as to how many days earlier to the main occurrence, the petitioner and his co-accused plotted to commit the murder of the deceased and the stance taken by the witnesses in this respect is vague as well as speculative. In such an eventuality, the probability cannot be ruled out that the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case due to malice or ulterior motives of the complainant or for some mischievous wire-pulling by him, which brings his case within the ambit of further inquiry as enunciated by section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
7. Therefore, the instant application is accepted and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail allowed to the petitioner vide order dated 22-1-2013 is confirmed subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.