' MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.---Bolan, petitioner seeks bail in case F.I.R. No.14 dated 8-3-2000 under sections 302/201/511/34, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station, Shahwali, District Rajanpur.
2. The prosecution story, as narrated in the F.I.R. Lodged by Akbar complainant is that on 7-3-2000 at morning time his son Pehlwan went out of the house for grazing the cattle. At about 4-00 p.m.
The complainant along with Muhammad Yaseen and Nawab witnesses was present on the southern side of the river outside of his house, whereas his son Pehlwan was on the northern side.
Suddenly, Hameed Ullah co-accused, empty-handed along with Bolan petitioner, Balawal and Muhabat co-accused, while armed with hatchets emerged there and raised Lalkara of teaching him lesson of not giving possession of the land. Hameed Ullah grappled Pehlwan, who fell down on the ground. Petitioner gave three successive hatchet injuries hitting on the neck of Pehlwan.
Balawal co-accused gave hatchet blow hitting on the backside of his head. Muhabat co-accused gave hatchet blow, which hit on his right shoulder, who succumbed to the injuries at the spot. The accused in order to destroy the evidence threw the dead body in the river and fled away from the spot. The motive behind the scene was that six months prior to the registration of F.I.R., a civil litigation regarding 8 acres land was going on in which the complainant was in possession and the accused in furtherance of common object committed the murder of his son.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was arrested on 9-4- 2000 and despite lapse of more than three and half years, the trial has not yet been concluded. It is further submitted that the main witnesses of the case i.e. Complainant and the two eyewitnesses are avoiding to appear in the trial Court just to linger on the trial. It is next argued that petitioner was earlier tried and acquitted of the charge of murder of Pehlwan deceased vide order dated 12- 4-2001 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajanpur, therefore, the petitioner's case require further inquiry.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the application by contending that the petitioner's acquittal in the other case was with respect to the case F.I.R. No.15 of 2000 while the instant case relates to F.I.R. No.14 of 2000. It is further submitted that in the other case, there was another deceased namely Wazir Khatoon, therefore, it is concluded that these are two separate incidents.
5. I have gone through the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. In para.4 of the said judgment the charge framed against the present petitioner includes the causing of death of Pehlwan deceased, the victim in the instant case although in the said case charge is also with respect to the murder of Mst. Wazeer Khatoon as well.
6. Be,ithat as it may, prima facie the Court cannot loose sight of the fact that the petitioner is being charged for the murder for the same deceased for the second time. It is also to be noted that the petitioner is behind the bars for more than three and a half years and the only witnesses whose A statements have not so far been recorded are complainant and private witnesses who are closely related to him.
7. For what has been stated above, the petitioner's case requires further inquiry. He is, therefore, admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.70,000 (Rupees seventy thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.