MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.~ Bail is claimed in case-FIR NO. 132/97 registered under sections 302/352/148/149/324/337-F (i), 337-A (v) PPC, at the instance of Muhammad Jaffar, at P.S. Kanganpur Tehsil Chunian District Kasur, On 27-4- 1997.
2. Allegations against the petitioners were that they were part of 8-accused who were responsible for the occurrence dated 27-4-1997. They formed themselves into an assemblage, nurturing common intention, to do away with the deceased and 2-injured P.Ws.
3. I have heard the arguments,.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has specifically made a mention to the inclusion of the names of both the petitioners, along with to others, in column no. 2 of the challan to contend that even the affidavits sworn by eye- witnesses/P.Ws were mentioned in Zimni No. 17 dated 28-5-1997 and that in the presence of the said material, the entitlement of the petitioners to the concession of bail was more than apparent. The learned additional Sessions Judge, Chunian is not quite right in not taking into consideration the nature of the material collected against them as also the fact that both the petitioners stand exonerated by .The P.Ws, whose names appear in the calendar of witnesses, as well. Contrarily, learned counsel for the State has controverted the pleas raised in support of this application. According to him, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chunian was not acting contrary to law when he observed that although persons who had sworn the affidavits were produced before him but it was not a fit case to grant the concession of bail to the petitioners.
5. I have considered the arguments addressed at the Bar by both sides and I have also been taken through the material, available with the representative from the concerned police station. It is the case of the prosecution itself that way back on 28- 5-1997, material did start pouring in to exonerate the petitioners, in the case against them. That material, in fact, was the basis for the placement of the petitioners in column No. 2 of the challan report under section 173 Cr.P.C. Even otherwise, the petitioners have succeeded in making out a case for bail as the prosecution has itself held them, prima facie, entitled to such treatment. It is trite law that an accused will be meeting out proper reverence to the decision after his trial and if it is a verdict of conviction, the prosecution does not stand to lose, ultimately. If however, the petitioner is not allowed bail and- remains behind the bars and ultimately acquitted in the case, there will be no reparation to be made for his unjustified incarceration. See Manzoor and 4 others v. The State (PLD 1972 S.C. 81).
6. For all that has gone before, this application is allowed, Petitioners- Hassan and Mansha alias Kali sons of Jalal Din shall be released from jail on their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.
50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Chunian.