Through the instant petition under Sectio n 497, .Cr.P.C. the petitioner namely Muhammad Fayyaz alias Fayyaz Hussain is seeking post-arrest bail in the case FIR No. 700 of 2018 dated 30.09.2 018 registered at Police Station Shah Jamal, District Muzaf fargarh, in respect of of fences under sections 302, 376, 456 and 51 1, PPC.
2. The allegation as against the petitioner namely Muhammad Fayyaz alias Fayyaz Hussain, culled from the evidentiary material placed before the Court, is that he administered toxic food to the deceased, namely Sajeela Bibi causing her death and also tried to rape her .
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of this case with their able assistance.
4. At the very outset, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General, after perusal of the record of the investigation, has submitted that during the investigation of the case the allegations against the petitioner of administering toxic food to the deceased and attempting to rape her were found false. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General, after perusal of the record of the investigation, has also submitted that during the investigation of the case the Investigating Officer collected evidentiary material, establishing that the deceased had received a mobile phone from the petitioner and this fact came into the knowledge of the husband and other relatives of the deceased and for this reason, the deceased, in order to avoid their wrath, committed suicide. It was concluded during the investigation that the petitioner had not killed the deceased rather he was romantically involved with her. The Investigating Officer, during the investigation of the case, did not collect any evidence to prove that the petitioner had administered toxic food to the deceased. During the investigation of the case, the utensils lastly used by the deceased were not taken into possession and no report of Punjab Forenisc Science Agency , Lahore is available in this regard. Similarly , during the investiga tion of the case, no statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of any witness was recorded to prove that the petitioner had purchased poisonous material. Furthermore, the narrative of the FIR itself reveals that the petitioner and the deceased had taken the last meal together and if poison was present in the food, then it should have affected the petitioner also. Likewise, during the investigation of the case, no remnants of the last meal taken by the deceased were taken into possession by the Investig ating Officer so as to prove the allegations against the petitioner . During the investigation of the case, the Call Data Record was also collected which showed continuous intimacy between the deceased and the petitioner . The FIR itself shows that the petitioner had no motive to kill the deceased. The Post-Mortem Examination Report of the deceased reveals that she had no mark of violence on any part of her body , including the private parts and the allegation against the petitioner that he attempted to commit rape with the deceased is also not borne out from the record. The prosecution itself has two versions vis--vis the petitioner , first was of the complainant party according to which the petitioner administered toxic food to the deceased, namely Sanjeela Bibi causing her death and also tried to rape her and the second of the investigating agency , according to which the accused was not present at the spot at the time of occurrence and the deceased had in fact committed suicide. All these considerations surely render the case against the petitioner one of further inquiry into his guilt which can only be undertaken by the learned trial Court after recording of the evidence. Reliance in this regard is placed on the cases titled as "Ehsanullah v. The State"
(2012 SCMR 1137), "Nasar v. The State and others" (2017 SCMR 130) and "Muhammad Aslam versus The State and others" (2016 SCMR 1520 ) The petitioner namely Muhammad Fayyaz alias Fayyaz Hussain was arrested in this case on 12.04.2019 and since then he is behind the bars. The petitioner is a previous non-convict and never involved in any case. Investigation qua him is complete and his person is no more required for further investigation, therefore, his continued incarceration would not serve any beneficial purpose at this stage. Mere involvement in a heinous offence is no ground for refusing bail to an accused who otherwise becomes entitled for the Concession of bail.
5. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry covered by sub- section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Liability of petitioner for the said offences would be determined by the learned trial Court after Sifting the evidentiary worth of the material produced before the same. Till then, case of petitioner would be within the domain of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt. The petition in hand is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 500,000/- (rupees five hundred thousand only) with two sureties, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
6. Needless to mention that any observations made in the above order are tentative in nature and shall not influence the trial Court. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has pointed out that the complainant has filed a private complaint in respect of this case and the respondents of the said private complaint have been summoned to face trial by the learned trial Court. In view of this, a direction is issued to the learned trial Court to conclude the trial of the petitioner expeditiously , preferably within a period of four months from the receipt of copy of this order .