' M. BILAL KHAN, J.---Lakhmeer Ahmad son of Karam Bakhsh, the petitioner, seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,99 of 2006 dated 7-3-2006 registered with Police Station 'A' Division, Kasur for offences under sections 302, 364, 201, P.P.C.
2. The story as narrated in the F.I.R. Registered at the instance of Ali Lazim who is a son of Abdul Khaliq Qureshi, Advocate (deceased), was that he was residing at Dosehra Ground, Kasur with his father; on 6-3-2006 about 5-30 p.m. He was present in his house along with his brother-in-law (sister's husband), Ghulam Qadir and his paternal uncle Muhammad Akbar, when his father reached there in a white coloured car which was being driven by Muhammad Mansha son of Din Muhammad while the latter's father-in-law was sitting on the rear seat his father was in the extremely terrified state who informed that those people were taking him along and that he would reach Katchehry the next day; on the next day he enquired about his father from the atter's clerk Muhammad Asghar who told him that his father had not reached the Katchehry and that he did not have any intimation about him since yesterday; the clerk further informed him that his father had come to the Katchery yesterday in the morning and he was having an amount of Rs,10,000 on him apart from two mobile phones, his Identity Card and his Lawyer's licence; on feeling concerned he made a call at his father's mobile number which was answered by a policeman who informed that his father had been shot dead and that his dead-body had been found in the area of Police Station Manga Mandi lying underneath a bridge; he had strong belief that his father had been abducted and killed by Muhammad Mansha and his father-in-law along with their unknown companions. Resultantly the instant F.I.R. Had been recorded.
3. The petitioner had been arrested on 11-3-2006 and is in custody ever since. His application for post-arrest bail had been turned down by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur vide order dated 10-6-2006. Hence the instant petition.
4. I have heard Ch. Muhammad Hussain Chhachhar, Advocate the learned counsel for the petitioner, Hafiz Muhammad Hanif Zafar, Advocate for the complainant as also Mian Abdul Qayyum Anjum, Advocate for the State and the record brought by Asif Ali A.S.-I., Police Station 'A' Division, Kasur has also been perused.
5. It has been noted that the petitioner is an old man of about 70 years of age. It has not been denied that Mansha co-accused has got two wives by the name of Amina daughter of Rasheed and Misbah daughter of Lakhmeer Ahmad (petitioner). The petitioner's name does not feature on the F.I.R. And it was not clear as to whether it was the petitioner or the other father-in-law of Mansha co-accused, who was allegedly sitting in the rear seat of the car. There is no direct evidence qua the petitioner and the only incriminating evidence presently available with the prosecution is a Fard Nishandahi, <.u> according to which at the pointing out of Mansha co- accused some incriminating material in the shape of a piece of Sofa cloth and some other related articles were recovered. According to this Fard Nishandahi it was Mansha co-accused who had pointed out the place from where the incriminating articles were recovered and not the petitioner.
This recovery had allegedly been made from the house of Mansha co-accused in the presence of Hassan Muhammad and Muhammad Akram constables on 15-3-2006. It is rather strange that the complainant who happens to be the real son of the deceased and who had seen his father sitting in the car of Mansha in a petrified condition did not even ask his father about the latter's fright and why did he take 18 long hours to begin his inquiry. I am restraining myself from making any further comment on the merits of the case as it would amount to a deeper appreciation of the material available on the record which is not permissible for deciding a bail application. Suffice it to say that at present the material available with the prosecution against the petitioner is prima facie not sufficient enough to connect him with an offence punishable with capital punishment or an offence entailing the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
6. There is no substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the complainant that since challan has been submitted and the charge has been framed, therefore, the concession of bail may be withheld from the petitioner. It is now well settled that the submission of challan or even commencement of trial will not deter the Court from extending the concession of bail if otherwise the petitioner is entitled to the same on merits. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, the case of the petitioner is one of further inquiry within the meanings of subsection (2), section 497, Cr.P.C,
7. Resultantly this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs,200,000 (Rupees two lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
8. Before parting with this order I would like to make it absolutely clear that the observation recorded hereinabove are not designed to influence the trial in any manner whatsoever.