' Rafiq and Hussain have applied for grant of bail under section 498, Cr. P. C. They are accused of offences under section 302/34, P. P. C. For the murder of Yusuf deceased vide F. I. R. No, 187 dated 15-10-1971, which was lodged by Qamar son of Machhia, the brother of Yusuf deceased. Rafiq and Hussain petitioners are mentioned as accused in the same. They have since been committed to stand their trial before the Court of Sessions. However, one Karamat, who is a cousin of Yusuf deceased, had lodged a private complaint on 17-11-1972 wherein he has mentioned an entirely different set of persons as the accused. They are: (1) Ibrahim, (2) Zulfiqar, (3) Khushi, (4)
Muhammad Hussain, (5). Ashraf, and (6) Manuwod. The commitment proceedings with regard to this complaint were started much later and have not yet concluded. According to the learned counsel only four, out of a total of 12 prosecution witnesses, have been examined. It is submitted by him that in view of the slow progress of the inquiry proceedings the trial of the present petitioners is likely to be considerably delayed because, according to the view taken by the Supreme Court in Nur Elahi v. The State (1) the complaint case should be taken up for hearing first, and only after the witnesses thereof are exhausted, should the witnesses of the police case be examined. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the net result would be that the trial of the petitioners would be kept pending till the inquiry proceedings in the complaint case are completed. He submitted that further delay is likely to be caused by the fact that no Magistrate has yet been posted at Samundari, where the inquiry is pending.
2. Having considered the above-mentioned facts I feel that this is a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioners notwithstanding the fact that they have been committed to trial for an offence punishable, with death. It has been held in Manzoor v. State (2) that- "It is important to remember that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. There is no legal or moral compulsion to keep people in Jail merely on the allegation that they have committed offences punishable with death or transportation, unless reasonable grounds appear to exist to disclose their complicity. The ultimate conviction and incarceration of a guilty person can repair the wrong caused by a mistaken belief of interim to him, but no satisfactory reparation can be offered to an innocent man for his unjustified incarceration at any stage of the case albeit his acquittal in the long run."
3. The petitioners are granted bail in the sum of 25,000 (Rupees twenty-five thousand) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Lyallpur. {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1968 SC 768 (2) PLD 1972 SC 81 {{FOOT NOTE}}