CH. MUSHTAQ AHMAD, J.---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, P.P.C., 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 along with his sons namely Riasat and Arif was present at his house in village Mararia. Three unknown persons entered into the house and took Bushra P 1, 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.
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; that said All Akbar has already been acquitted from he charge in this case and that Identification Parade, in this case, was not conducted; that mere absconsion of accused was not a ground for refusal of bail; that his guilt needs further probe and his case calls for further inquiry.
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. He placed reliance on "Ghulam Ahmad Chishti v. The State" (2013 SCM R 385).
5. Heard. Perused.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner was not nominated in the FIR. He was involved in this case on the statement of co-accused who was nominated by the complainant in his supplementary statement. Accused who was nominated in supplementary statement, had already been acquitted from the charge in this case. Mere absconsion of accused could not be a valid ground for refusal of bail to him if otherwise, he had a case for bail on merits. Reference may be made to "Mitho Pitafi v.
The State" (2009 SCM R 299), "Allah Ditta v. The State and others" (2012 SCM R 184) and "Qamar alias Mitho v. The State and others" (PLD 2012 SC 222). Material collected in this case is not sufficient to prima facie opine that petitioner had committed the alleged offence, hence, his guilt, at present stage, needs further probe and his case calls for further inquiry. In the case cited by' learned DDPP i.e, "Ghulam Ahmad Chishti v. The State" (2013 SCM R 385), the petitioner was nominated in FIR with specific role of firing with Kalashnikov at the deceased. During the occurrence, three persons lost their lives while other three were seriously injured. In the cited case, though, it was opined that statement of co-accused during investigation could be considered to prima facie form opinion about involvement of accused in the commission of offence but the facts of the case in hand being totally distinguishable, as noted above, hence, the case law is not applicable to the case in hand.
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.