Through this petition, Muhammad Abbas petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 1057, dated 07.08.2011, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Faisalabad, in respect of offences under Sections 302 and 148/149, PPC.
2. At the very outset, learned Law Officer is satisfied that a duly served notice upon the complainant of this case is available on the police file. Despite repeated calls, no one is putting appearance on behalf of the complainant, therefore, I have no other option but to decide this bail petition after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Law Officer.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. As per contents of the F.I.R. Joint allegation against the petitioner is that he along with four nominated and two unknown co accused, made indiscriminate firing with their respective automatic weapons hitting the deceased Imtiaz Ahmed, who succumbed to the injuries at the spot, subsequently, on the same day the complainant in her supplementary statement while specifying and attributing role to each accused has categorically stated that present petitioner made only aerial firing at the time of occurrence and did not cause any injury to he deceased.
Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in the final report prepared by the Investigating Officer under Section 173, Cr.P.C. He has concluded that during the course of investigation, petitioner has been found innocent in this case, however, on the insistence of the complainant, he has been challaned while leaving him at the mercy of the Court. Learned Law Officer after consulting the record confirms the stance taken by learned counsel for the petitioner hat petitioner has been declared innocent during the investigation d there is supplementary statement available on the record made by the complainant on the same day stating therein that petitioner did of cause any injury to the deceased, however, made only aerial firing at the spot. He further confirms that no specific weapon of offence has been alleged against the petitioner in the F.I.R. And during the investigation, no recovery of any weapon of offence has been affected from him.
Keeping in view the divergent stance taken by the complainant and final result of the investigation case against in the petitioner squarely falls v. Within the purview of sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. And is one of further inquiry into his guilt. Question of vicarious liability of the petitioner in the peculiar circumstances of the case, can validly be determined by the learned trial Court only after recording of some evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner states at bar that petitioner is previously non-convict and is behind the bars since 22.07.2014. Mere abscondance of the petitioner cannot come in the way when otherwise he has a good case for bail after arrest in his favour.
Therefore, without further commenting upon the merits of the case, I accept this petition and admit the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
5. It is, however, clarified that observations made herein above are just tentative in nature and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition.