' Petitioner Muhammad Ali alias Mamma through the instant petition has sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.682 dated 28-6-2003 under sections 302/452/109/34, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Saddar, Faisalabad.
2. Briefly the prosecution case per F.I.R. Is that he was party to the criminal conspiracy to do away with deceased Mst. Tasawar Bibi.
3. It has been argued ca his behalf that he had falsely been roped in; that he had .No motive to hatch up the conspiracy with his co-accused to do away with the deceased; and that he is behind the bars for the last about 11 months and so for there is no substantial progress towards his trial.
4. Conversely the learned State counsel assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the petition on the ground that he is named in the F.I.R.; that he was the person who had hatched up conspiracy to do away with the deceased and so he is sufficiently connected with the crime; and that his trial has commenced.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made from both the sides with the help of available record.
6. The only allegation against him in the F.I.R. Is that he was party to the criminal conspiracy to do away with the deceased. It is like that he alongwith his co-accused on 27-6-2003 at about 5/6 p.m.
Was present in the graveyard of the village when P.Ws. Nasir and MurtazaGujjar were passing therefrom and he was saying to them to murder deceased Mst. Tasawar Bibi.
7. The question that if anyone will hatch up conspiracy so openly and at a place like graveyard especially when other persons may be passing nearby is open to serious consideration. His case, therefore, definitely falls within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Calling for further inquiry into his guilt.
8. I have been informed by the learned counsel for the petitionerthat so for only one witness and that too relating to the execution of the process against the proclaimed offenders has been examined and none from the prosecution witnesses. Even otherwise, the commencement of trial is no bar to the grant of bail to accused.The reference in this regard is made to the case of Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafique and another (PLD 1989 SC 585).
9. He is stated to be behind the bars for the last about 11 months and a previous non-convict.
10. In these circumstances. I find that case for his enlargement on bail has been made out.
11. The petition, therefore, is accepted and he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.