ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.---Through this petition under section 497 Cr.P.C. the petitioner Faisal Ahmad has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No,1568/2016 dated 28.11.2016 under sections 302, 365, d201, 377, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Kot Lakhpat, District Lahore.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of this case with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and deeper appreciation of evidence is not allowed at this stage. It is noticed that the petitioner is not named in FIR. He has been involved in this case through supplementary statement dated 30.11.2016 after about four days of the occurrence wherein no source of his information has been mentioned as to how he came to know about the involvement of the petitioner. Such supplementary statement has got no value in the eyes of law. Reliance is placed on case law titled as "Falak Sher alias Sheru v. The State" 1995 SCM R 1350 and "Abid Ali alias Ali v. The State" 2011 SCM R 161. The statements of PWs Arsalan and Faiz under section 161, Cr.P.C. regarding the last seen evidence were recorded by the investigation officer on 03.12.2017 after a delay of about seven days of the occurrence and the fact why they have remained mum for such a period has casts serious doubt about the involvement of petitioner in this case. It is settled law that delayed statements of PWs recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. have got little value. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the case of Ghulam Qadir and 2 others v. The State (2008 SCMR 221). As far as, attraction of offence under section 377, P.P.C. is concerned, admittedly, according to the report of DNA, no seminal material was detected. The petitioner is previous non-convict, never involved in any criminal case, he is behind the bars since 09.01.2017; investigation qua him is complete; challan has been submitted in the learned trial court; mere heinousness of offence is no ground to withheld discretion of post-arrest bail in favour of an accused if otherwise he become entitled to bail; no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars, thus, his further incarceration would not serve any beneficial purpose at this stage.
3. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond 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. However, the learned Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial of the instant case positively within a period of six months from the receipt of certified copy of this order under intimation of this court through Deputy Registrar (Judicial).
4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only.