' This application for bail after arrest has been filed on behalf of Mumtaz Ahmad petitioner who alongwith the co-accused is involved in a case based on F.I.R. No,101 of 2001 registered on 14-3-2001 in Police Station "A" Division, Okara under sections 302/34/109, P.P.C.
2. The F.I.R. Was lodged by one Muhammad Ramzan Bhatti stating therein that he is a practising lawyer and that his brother Irshad Muhammad was residing in Chaman Zar Colony alongwith children. On the previous Eid day his brother alongwith his son Suhail Irshad came to him and told him that Suhail Irshad was having illicit relations with Mst. Rukhsana, the daughter of Muhammad Tufail and Suhail Irshad wanted to marry her and the aforesaid girl i,e, Mst. Rukhsana was compelling him to marry her. The complainant and his brother Irshad Muhammad prevailed upon him and forbade him from marrying the said girl. The complainant's brother went to the house of Muhammad Tufail Gill and informed him that this marriage was not possible and thereupon Ejaz and Mumtaz sons of Tufail got infuriated and threatened that if Suhail will not marry their daughter Rukhsana, he will not be able to marry anyone else as well. On previous night, after offering Isha prayers, the complainant, his brother Irshad Muhammad, Muhammad Saleem, his nephew Hamid Irshad and Suhail Irshad were talking to each other in their house when Ejaz Ahmad son of Riaz Ahmad came there and told them that a friend of Suhail Ahmad was calling him and that they will return soon. Suhail Irshad, Ejaz Ahmad and Riaz Muhammad thus, went away. When Suhail Irshad did not return, the complainant and other members of his family suspected some foulplay, whereupon the complainant, Irshad Ahmad, Muhammad Saleem and his nephew Hamid went out in search of Suhail. When they reached near Masjid Hira adjacent Model Town, Okara, they saw the light of an electric bulb that Ijaz Ahmad and Mumtaz Ahmad sons of Muhammad Tufail Gill were sitting on Suhail Ahmad who was lying on the ground. Ijaz Ahmad had put a piece of cloth around his neck and Mumtaz accused was holding his legs. When they reached near them, both the accused fled away after seeing them. Then it was around 2-15 a.m. And the accused disappeared in the cover of darkness. In the meanwhile, Suhail Irshad had expired. The complainant alleged that his nephew Suhail Irshad had been killed by Ijaz and Mumtaz accused sons of Muhammad Tufail Gill at the instance of Mst. Rukhsana. Hence, the matter was reported to the police.
3. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
4. It has been pointed out that Ijaz Ahmad, co-accused of the present petitioner had been earlier admitted to bail by this Court on 24-10-2001. The allegation against the present petitioner as per F.I.R. Is that he was holding legs of the deceased while his co-accused Ijaz Ahmad had put a piece of cloth around his neck. It appears from record that around 5/6 a.m. On 14-3-2001, one Rai Abid Nawaz son of Rai Haq Nawaz resident of Model Town Colony had informed Rescue 15 on telephone about the dead body and Rescue 15 informed Eagle Squad III and that Eagle Squad III had informed S.-I./S.H.O., Police Station "A"' Division, Okara that the dead body was of Suhail Irshad son of Irshad Muhammad resident of "A" Block, House.No,22, Chori Gali, Okara. An attested photo copy of the Log Book of Police Wireless Station of Rescue 15, Okara is Appended with the bail application. It also appears from the record that in his report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Inspector/S.H.O., Police Station "A": Division, Okara had observed that in the course of investigation, the statements of the complainant and his eye-witness did not find suppor. It was also mentioned by him in his report under section 173, Cr.P.C. That if the story narrated by the complainant had been true, there was no need to inform Rescue 15 about the occurrence, nor rescue 15 would have sent Eagle Squad to the spot. It was held in PLD 1972 SC 277 that for the purpose of bail, law is not to be stretched in favor of the prosecution and benefit of doubt, if any, must go to the accused.
5. It is clear that benefit of doubt can be extended to an accused person even at the bail stage.
Since the co-accused namely Ijaz Ahmad has already been admitted to bail by this Court (although on a different ground) and as the role attributed to the petitioner and Ijaz aforesaid is similar although not exactly the same and since it is clearly a case of further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail. Accordingly, the bail application is accepted and Mumtaz petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.