' Through instant petition, petitioner Zahid Iqbal seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 30/2014 dated 20.2.2014 under Sections 302, 34, PPC registered at Police Station Kanganpur District Kasur.
2. Briefly the prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR is that he along with his two co-accused persons in furtherance of common intention made brick blow on head of father of the complainant, who succumbed to the injury.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. There is delay of nine months in lodging the FIR which has not been explained. Although the petitioner is named in the FIR but involvement of the petitioner was not substantiated as during the course of investigation conducted by local police, he was found innocent and circumstances of the case were also found to be doubtful. Being dissatisfied with the result of investigation carried out by the local police, the complainant moved an application for change of investigation which was again conducted by DSP, Chunian and during the second investigation the petitioner was also declared innocent and was left at the mercy of the Court. During the course of investigation nothing was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The prosecution itself has two versions in the instant case first put forth by the prosecution according to which the petitioner is involved in the instant case and the second made by the I.O. According to which the petitioner is innocent in this case. Which version is correct would be adjudged by the learned trial Court after recording of evidence. Challan has been submitted to the learned trial Court where reportedly trial has not commenced. The petitioner is neither previously convict nor there is any record against him. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars. Reliance is place on the case of "Ehsan Ullah vs. The State" (2012 SCM R 1137) wherein their lordship was pleased to hold as follows: "Prosecution itself had two versions vis-a-vis the accused, first was of complainant party according to which accused was present at the spot and had resorted to firing and second of investigating agency according to which accused was not present at the spot and he was abetting his co- accused behind the scene-such consideration render the case against the accused one of further inquiry into his guilt."
5. In view of what has been discussed above matter against the petitioner has become one of further inquiry as contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Resultantly, instant petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 200,000/- (rupees two lac only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
6. The observations made above are tentative in nature and would not effect merits of case of either party.