' M. BILAL KHAN, J.---Atique son of Mustafa, the petitioner, seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,316 dated 5-12-2005 registered at Police Station, Malka Hanse, Pakpattan for offences under sections 302/34 and 380, P.P.C.
2. The prosecution story as narrated in the F.I.R. Registered at the instance of Muhammad Panah son of Sher Muhammad, the complainant, was that he was a resident of Chah Balochan Wala and was cultivator; his son Muhammad Khan who was employed in the Army and was away to South Africa on official duty, was married to Mst. Shahida Parveen daughter of Muhammad Younas Baloch about five /six years back; there is male child by the name of Ehtesham aged three years from the said wedlock who is also 'residing with him; on 5-12-2005 about 7-30 p.m. He went to sleep in his room whereas his daughter-in-law Shahida Parveen, her son Ehtesham and Mazhar Hussain son of Khurshid aged 10/11 years were sleeping in the other room; about 11-30 p.m.
Ehtesham the minor child came to his door crying on which he woke up; he wanted to, open the door, however, the same was bolted from outside whereupon he called Mazhar Hussain his maternal grandson who was with Shahida Parveen at that time; he came; opened the door and informed him that two unknown person had killed Chachi Shahida; when he entered the room of Shahida Parveen an electric light was on and she was lying dead straight on the bed; there were tooth marks on the neck and a scratch on the nose; he woke up Mst. Azra Bibi, wife of Abid Baloch and sister of Shahida Parveen and narrated the incident; on commotion several persons from Deh arrived; his maternal grandson told that two unknown persons had come and by strangulating Shahida Parveen with the string of her Shaiwar had caused her death. Resultantly the instant F.I.R.
Had been recorded.
3. On 4-1-2006 during the course of investigation one Muhammad Khan stated before the police that the petitioner was also involved in the murder.
4. The petitioner's application for pre-arrest bail had been turned down by the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge, Pakpattan Sharif vide his order dated 28-2-2006, whereafter he approached this Court for the said relief. He was allowed ad interim pre-arrest bail by my brOther Sh. Abdul Rashid, J. As his lordship then was, thereafter the matter remained pending and has come up before me for the first time today.
5. I have heard Mr. Saifullah Khan, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ch. Muhammad Hussain Chhachhar, Advocate for the complainant, as also Sardar Bilal Ahmad, Advocate for the State and have perused the record brought by Muhammad Khalid, D.S.P. , Regional Investigation Branch, Multan.
6. It has straightaway been observed that the petitioner's name did not figure in the F.I.R. Which had been recorded on 5-1-2005. On 8-12-2005, Safdar Ali son of Noor Muhammad and Muhammad Aslam son of Bagh Ali had made statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. That Muhammad Khan and Iqbal had been seen going towards the house of the deceased along with one unknown person.
They also stated that from the room in which Shahida Parveen deceased had been done to death Rs,5,500 and a Nokia Mobile Phone were also missing. On 13-12-2005 one Muhammad Afzal son of Muhammad Younas in his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Stated that he had seen Iqbal and Muhammad Khan on the day of occurrence around the house of the deceased with an unknown person and an amount of Rs,5,500 and some ornaments were missing. On 4-1-2006 Muhammad Khan during the course of investigation stated that Atique (petitioner) had also participated in the occurrence. Safdar Ali and Muhammad Aslam whose initial statements under section 161, Cr.P.C.
Had been recorded on 8-12-2005 made supplementary statements that Atique was also standing outside the house of the deceased. It is interesting to note that Muhammad Panah complainant had filed a petition under sections 22-A/22-B, Cr.P.C. Before the learned Sessions Judge, Pakpattan Sharif praying therein that the police had not correctly recorded his version on account of fear of their superiors and had not arrested the remaining accused persons. In the said application he had stated that when he woke to the cries of his maternal grandson Ehtesham and on the call of Shahida Parveen the door was opened, he had witnessed that Muhammad Khan alias Khanu, Iqbal alias Kala and Atique son of Mustafa (petitioner) were beating up Shahida Parveen and were forcing her to hand over the gold ornaments and hard cash; that he had identified all the three accused persons in the light of the bulb and when he raised noise Iqbal alias Kala warned him to keep quiet or else he would be killed; that his alarm had been heard by the neighbours and other relatives who had asked him not to worry as they were coming to their rescue whereupon all the three accused persons had fled after scaling over the wall; when he and other guests who were present there tried to catch hold of the accused persons, all three of them who were armed with fire-arms threatened them that whomsoever came near would be done to death. It was also alleged in the said application under sections 22-A/22-B, Cr.P.C. That an amount of Rs,45,000 and gold ornaments, a cellular phone valued at Rs,35,00 had also been snatched.
7. It is thus clear that divergent statements had been made not only by the complainant but also by his witnesses. The entire prosecution story abounds with serious doubts and the integrity of the F.I.R. Needs a thorough scrutiny at the time of trial. In this view of the matter the case of the petitioner is preeminently one of further inquiry within the meanings of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
8. Resultantly this petition is accepted and the ad interim pre-arrest bail allowed to the petitioner in terms of this Court's order dated 2-3-2006 is hereby confirmed.