ABDULLAH BALOCH, J.---This order disposes of Crl. Bail Application No.128 of 2019 filed by the applicant (accused) Najeebullah son of Saifullah, seeking bail after arrest, in case FIR No.201 of 2018, Police Station Saddar Loralai, under Section 302, 34, P .P.C.
2. Facts of the case are that on 22nd November 2018, the complainant Abdul Latif son of Ilaji Abdul Khaliq lodged above FIR, stating therein that on the preceding day i.e. 21st November 2018 his cousin Muhammad Shah was fitting sewerage pipe in his Block Factory located at Quetta road Loralai near Dar-ul-Aloom Madrisa, when accused namely Muhammad Rasool, Haji Habibullah and Najeebullah (applicant) attacked upon him. His cousin Muhammad Shah in order to save his life ran away to the shop of Haji Abdul Khaliq,, but the accused persons being armed with pistols entered in the said shop, where the accused Muhammad Rasool and Haji Habibullah made firing upon him by means of pistol, due to which his cousin received grievou s injuries, whereafter the injured was shifted to Civil Hospital and subsequently to Quetta, but he succumbed to his injuries. According to the complainant the incident was witnessed by Muhammad Yaqoob and Ashraf.
3. After usual investigation, the applicant (accused) was arrested, who faced the investigation and on completion thereof was challaned before the trial Court i.e. Sessions Judge. Loralai. In the meantime, the applicant (accused) tiled an application for grant of bail in the trial Court, but the same was declined, vide order dated 26th March 2019.
Whereafter , instant application has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for applicant (accused) contended that the FIR was lodged after unexplained delay of one day; that the contents of FIRs shows that though the presence of the applicant (accused) was shown, but no any role of firing, threatening, warning and Lalkara was ascribed to him, while subsequently after deliberation and consultation through supplementary statement the complainant attributed a role of controlling to the deceased by the applicant, hence the case of prosecution is one of further inquiry in order to ascertain whether the applicant (accused) had participated in the crime or -otherwise; that if the entire case of prosecution, is admitted in tow even then no case at all is made out against the applicant (accused); that no crime weapon whatsoever in nature is required to be effected from the possession of the applicant; that the applicant (accused) is a juvenile, who otherwise had, no information about registration of case and his nomination in the same; that investigation in the matter has been completed by the Investigating Agency by submitting challan in the trial Court, thus the applicant (accused) is no more required for the purpose of investigation or probe, as such, his further detention would not serve any fruitful purposes, thus entitled to be released on bail.
5. Learned State Counsel has strongly opposed the contentions so advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant (accused) and contended that the applicant (accused) has been nomina ted in the promptly lodged FIR, who with the furtherance of common intention of remaining armed accused persons arrived at the place of occurrence and committed the murder of deceased, hence the arrival of the present applicant (accused) with the remaining armed accused persons establishes his common intention/object and mens rea for committing the crime.
Even otherwise, through supplementary statement the applicant (accused) has been ascribed the specific role of controlling the deceased, hence not only the record of the case suggests his presence, but also his participation in the crime; that the applicant (accused) has been charged for offence, which is not only heinous and non-bailable, but also it carries punishment for Death or life, thus in no way he is entitled for grant of bail.
6. Heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the available record minutely . Perusal of record reveal, that though the applicant (accused) has been nominated in the FIR, but the fact remains that no any role .of firing was attributed to him. According to own case of the prosecution the applicant (accused) was empty handed at the relevant time, while as per the Medical report the deceased had received bullet injuries on his person. Though the contents of FIR are showing the presence of the applicant (accused) at the place of occurrence, but the same is silent with regard to any sort of role that was played by the applicant (accused). This fact alone makes it a case of further inquiry in order to ascertain as to whether the applicant (accused) had common intention and common object to commit the crime or his presence was unintentional.
7. It has also been observed that the complainant through supplementary statement has attributed a role of controlling to the deceased by the present applicant (accused), but presently the complainant has failed to disclose as to why he has not mentioned the role of this applicant (accused) in the First Information Report. Such role assigned to the present applicant subse quently through supplementary statement creates a reasonable doubt about his participation in the commission of instant offence. Reliance in this regard has been taken from the case titled Allah Ditta v. The State and another 2014 PCr.LJ 658, wherein it has been held that whenever no overt act is ascribed to the applicant (accused), the superior courts are lenient towards admitting him to bail. According to the consistent view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that when the case against the accused is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr .P.C. he is entitled to the concession of bail as a matter of right.
8. The tentative assessment of record prima-facie suggests that it is a case of further inquiry . Besides, investigation in the matter has been completed, trial commenced and admittedly the applicant (accused) is no more required for the purpose of investigation or probe. Thus, keeping him behind the bars would not serve any fruitful purposes.
For the above reasons, the application is allowed. The applicant (accused) Najeebullah son of Saifullah, is ordered to be released on bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50 0,000/- (Rupees Five Hundred Thousand) with P .R. bonds of the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court or Additional Registrar of this Court.
The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and the same shall not influence the merits of the case.