Petitioner Muhammad Amanat Khan sought post arrest bail in case FIR No.232/2011 dated 04.05.2011, for the offence under Sections 302/392/34 PPC, 13/20/65 A.O., registered at Police Station Hazro, District Attock as his bail petition filed before the trial court was dismissed vide order dated 27.10.2014.
2. The crime was reported by Muhammad Razaq complainant who alleged that on 04.05.2011 at 07.45 p.m, he alongwith his sons namely Riasat and Arif was present at his house in village Mararia.
Three unknown persons entered into the house and took Bushra Bibi, his daughter in law and Maroof Jan, his mother on gun point and looted cash, gold ornaments and clothes. Two accused were of heavy weight whereas one was slim. In the meanwhile, his son Riasat came, seeing him, accused started running. Riasat caught one of the accused. In the meanwhile, the accused fired at him and the shot hit on his chest. Riasat fell down and died. Accused escaped leaving the pistol at the place of occurrence. On the above information, case was registered. During investigation, present petitioner was arrested.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that present petitioner was not nominated in the FIR; that only evidence against the petitioner is that his co-accused Ali Akbar had implicated him during investigation as his co-accused; that said Ali Akbar has already been acquitted from the charge in this case and that Identification Parade, in this case, was not conducted; that mere abscondence of accused was not a ground for refusal of bail; that his guilt needs further probe and his case calls for further inquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention, placed reliance on "Mitho Pitafi. Vs. The State" (2009 SCM R 299), "Allah Ditta Vs. The State and others" (2012 SCM R 184) and "Qamar alias Mitho. Vs. The State and others" (PLD 2012 SC 222).
4. On the other hand, learned D.D.P.P has vehemently opposed this petition on the ground that the petitioner was implicated by his co-accused namely Ali Akbar during investigation and that the petitioner was also challaned to face trial in this case, hence, he is not entitled to the concession of bail and in support of his contention placed reliance on "Ghulam Ahmad Chishti Vs. The State"
(2013 SCM R 385).
5. Heard. Perused.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner was not nominated in the FIR. Record shows that on the statement of co-accused namely Ali Akbar, the present petitioner was arrested in this case. It is not denied by the prosecution that said Ali Akbar has already been acquitted from this case by the trial Court.
The present petitioner was resident of the same village whereby occurrence took place. He was implicated much after the occurrence during investigation. His co-accused who was nominated in supplementary statement by the complainant, had already been acquitted in this case. In the case law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner i.e. "Mitho Pitafi. Vs. The State" (2009 SCM R 299), it was observed that bail could be granted, if accused had good case for bail on merits and mere absconsion would not come in the way while granting him bail. In the case cited by learned DDPP i.e. "Ghulam Ahmad Chishti Vs. The State" (2013 SCM R 385), the facts were distinguishable. In that case the petitioner was attributed main role of firing with Kalashnikov at the deceased and during the occurrence, three persons lost their lives while other three were seriously injured. Hence, the cited case law is not applicable to the case in hand. Perusal of the material collected in this case shows that only statement of co-accused was available against the petitioner on record. The guilt of petitioner at present stage needs further probe and his case calls for further inquiry.
7. Consequently, this bail petition is allowed and petitioner be released on bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (one lac rupees) with two sureties each, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial court.