' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Through this application under section 497, Cr.P.C. Petitioner Khushnood alias Arif seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,465 of 2005, dated 3-10-2005 registered under sections 302/109/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Alipur Chatha District Gujranwala an the statement of Muhammad Aslam complainant.
2. The brief facts as alleged in the F.I.R. Are that Muhammad Akram deceased used to visit the house of Mst. Shazia co-accused whereas Zafar Iqbal co-accused and Arif Iqbal petitioner also used to visit the same. Muhammad Akram (deceased) brother of the complainant asked Mst.
Shazia co-accused to restrain Zafar co-accused and Arif petitioner from visiting her house but she did not do so. On 3-10-2005 at about 9.45 p.m. Mst. Shazia co-accused came to the house of the complainant and asked Muhammad Akram to accompany her as the guests had come from Lahore and they wanted to meet him in her house. Muhammad Akram went along with Mst. Shazia co-accused to her house. At about 10-00 p.m. The complainant, Javed Iqbal and Muhammad Nazir P.Ws. Were proceeding to their house from the main Bazar, when they came to across the house of Mst. Shazia co-accused, they saw that Mst. Shazia co-accused, was 'holding Muhammad Akram in "Jappha" whereas Arif Iqbal petitioner and Zafar Iqbal co-accused while armed with iron rods were abusing the deceased and stated that he should be taught a lesson for restraining them to visit the house of Mst. Shazia co-accused. Then they inflicted successive blows hitting on different parts of Muhammad Akram deceased who died at the spot.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the name of the petitioner is Khushnood and he is not known as Arif Iqbal as claimed by the complainant in the F.I.R. It is also contended that the complainant has not disclosed any source that how he came to know about the name of the petitioner as Arif Iqbal and parentage of both the accused Arif Iqbal and Zafar Iqbal has not been, mentioned by the complainant. The petitioner has been involved in the present case on suspicion and nothing is to be recovered from him. It is also contended that simple injury has been attributed to the petitioner which is an abrasion and injury No,3 is the main injury but death according to the doctor was as a result of suffocation and the eye-witnesses had not seen the incident otherwise they would have narrated that who had caused the same.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant and the State on the other hand have opposed the application on the ground that the name of the petitioner was Arif and he is involved in the present case which falls within the prohibitory clause; that the petitioner has committed a heinous offence; that the medical evidence supports the prosecution story and the application of the petitioner may be dismissed.
4A. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the entire record. The occurrence in the present case had taken place at 10.00 p.m. In the house of Mst. Shazia and the presence of the deceased at the said house during the odd hours of night casts serious doubt in the prosecution case. It is also found that Amjad Iqbal co-accused was declared innocent during investigation and the petitioner has been introduced as the accused who allegedly participated in the occurrence while claiming by the prosecution that his name was Khushnood alias Arif. The parentage of the petitioner has not been mentioned in the F.I.R. By the complainant. Even otherwise the petitioner is not resident of the same place where the complainant was residing in the days of incident and how he had come to know about the name of the petitioner is a question of further inquiry. Even otherwise the presence of the complainant and other eye-witnesses at the spot is also prima face found doubtful as they are chance witnesses and medicalevidence also does not support the story of the ocular account as injuries ANos.1 and 2 are only abrasions and had not contributed in the death ofthe deceased while injury No,3 on the neck according to the post-mortemexamination was sufficient to cause death. The possibility of the death of the deceased due to suffocation by pressing the neck of the deceasedcannot be ruled out. The witnesses had not stated that the accused hadpressed the neck and had murdered the deceased in that manner. The medical evidence is prima facie in contradiction with the ocular account and even otherwise the possibility of involvement of the petitioner in thepresent case cannot be ruled out due to suspicion. The petitioner in the above circumstances cannot be kept behind the bars for indefinite periodas there is no likelihood of the conclusion of the trial in the near future. The case of the petitioner otherwise is of further inquiry and is covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the instant bail application is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. #EndJudgment