Muhammad Maroof alias Karkhi son of Hakam Ali, petitioner, has sought his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,236 of 2001 registered at Police Station City Vehari, District Vehari on 5-11-2001, for offences under sections 324/148/149, P.P.C. After the death of Haji Riaz Mehmood section 302, P. P.0 . was added.
2. According to F.I.R. four co-accused, who were armed with 30 bore pistols came out of the car alongwith petitioner and after raising Lalkara by the petitioner they started tiring at the deceased.
The motive as given in the F.I.R. is that Haji Riaz Mehmood deceased had moved an application against the petitioner to step him from holding Urs (religious festival).
3. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 9-11-2001 and was sent to the judicial lock-up on 10-11- 2001. The investigation of the case is stated to be still in progress.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that 'the petitioner has been roped in this case because he is father of three accused namely Maasoom, Fakhar-ud-Din and Karamat. It is further argued that the petitioner was empty handed and a proverbial Lalkara has been attributed to him. The learned counsel has also placed reliance on the photo copy of the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory annexure-C of this petition. According to which the crime empties recovered from the place of occurrence and sent to the Laboratory were fired by the pistol allegedly recovered from Javed alone.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant and the State have vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner and argued that in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner had raised a commanding Lalkra and thereupon the co-accused fired at the deceased.
The petitioners were present at the scene of occurrence and the petitioners had motive to participate in the occurrence. It has also been argued that no deeper appreciation can be made at this stage. The offence attract the prohibitory clause4 of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, the bail should be refused as a rule in such-like cases.
6. During dictation of the order, the learned counsel for the complainant has added that it was a day light occurrence and the F.I.R. was lodged promptly. The identification of the accused/petitioners is not in question.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The ponce officer, who has brought the record has admitted that two of the accused namely Masoom and Falthar- ud-Din, who were sons of the petitioner and were named as active assailants in the occurrence, have not been arrested and they were also not declared absconders as according to police officer the matter is still under investigation whether they participated in the occurrence or not.
8. According to the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory Annexure-C of this petition, the crime empties recovered from' the scene of occurrence tallyed with the pistol allegedly recovered from Javed co-accused and not with the pistol allegedly recovered from Karamat accused. In these circumstances, reliance cannot be placed on the F.I.R. blind foldedly. It has been admitted that the bone of contention (the application moved by the deceased against the petitioner) was not available on the police record of the instant case. The petitioner was empty handed and only Laikara has been attributed to him.
9. In these circumstances, the allegation against the petitioner needs further probe within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, I allow this petition and admit the petitioner to bail, subject to his tendering bail bonds in the sum of Rs, One lac with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.