' Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case registered vide F.I.R. No,251 of 1998 under sections 302/380/411, P.P.C. At Police Station Pakka Laran.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Mukhtiar Ahmad reported the aforesaid F.I.R. Stating that during night of 20-10-1998, while he alongwith his father Muhammad Iqbal, was sleeping. At about 12-30 at night on hearing sound of foots, they got up and found the buffalo and its calf worth Rs,30,000 missing; raising noise about the theft, Ghulam Mustafa, Haji Ghulam Qadir also reached the spot, whereupon a search party was formed, which in the light of torch and lantern started the search of the cattle. When they covered some distance, they saw three persons, who could be recognised on appearance, taking away the cattle. On meeting the complainant and his companions the accused ran away. Father of the complainant tried to catch hold of the thief but he fired with pistol which hit on the face and neck, who succumbed to the injury at the spot. Subsequently, on second day, i.e, 21-10-1998, the complainant made his supplementary statement stating that Haji Ahmad and Hafiz Khuda Bakhsh came for condolence of his father, who, after hearing the detail of the incident, told him that last night both of them were going to their house on a motorcycle. When they reached at about 1-00 (night) Pakki Mandani, they saw three persons coming running from Pakka Laran side and one of them was recognized as Abdul Aziz Baluch who was called by them but without giving any reply, he alongwith his two companions fled away. On the aforesaid information of Khuda Bakhsh and Haji Ahmad, the petitioner is involved through the supplementary statement. He was arrested on 5-11-1998. Although the challan has been submitted but the trial has not commenced.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. He was nominated on the supplementary statement of complainant recorded on the basis of hearsay evidence of Haji. Ahmad and Hafiz Khuda Bakhsh. There is no other direct evidence to connect him with the crime. The case against him is of further inquiry and has relied upon Muhammad Hussain v. The State 1999 P.Cr.R.
590. The learned State Counsel has opposed the grant of bail.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. Admittedly, petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. He has been implicated on the statement of Haji Ahmad and Hafiz Khuda Bakhsh. Both of them are chance witnesses. The occurrence has taken place at mid-night. Out of the three culprits, none of them is specifically named as assailant. There is no positive report of the expert for the time being connecting pistol recovered from the petitioner and the empties recovered from the spot. The identification parade was also not held. The case at the moment against the petitioner is of further inquiry as laid down by this Court in Muhammad Hussain's case (referred above) ".... In the supplementary statement thus, recorded, no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner. It has been further taken notice of that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for over one year and two months and is no longer required by the police and that he is neither a previous convict nor a hardened criminal. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances, it hereby held that the case of the petitioner is one of further inquiry under the provisions of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. And the bail was granted. In the instant case, learned State Counsel concedes that the petitioner is not involved in any other case. He is neither a desperate nor hardened criminal. There is no direct evidence connecting him with the commission of the offence. He is in jail for the last more than six months.
' For the aforesaid reasons, petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,3,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.