' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---Through this petition Muhammad Nawaz alias Naji petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,136 registered at Police Station Misri Shah, Lahore on 23-3- 2001 for an offence under section 302, P.P.C. Read with section 34, P . P. C .
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has straightaway been noticed by me that the complainant of this case namely Zahoor Elahi had never claimed in the F.I.R. To be an eye-witness of the alleged occurrence and instead he had nominated two eye-witnesses in the F.I.R. Namely Muhammad Altaf son of Allah Ditta and Altaf son of Ibrahim who had allegedly seen two persons namely Shaukat Ali and Karamat Ali committing the murder of the complainant's brother namely Karam Elahi deceased. During the investigation both the said nominated accused persons had been found by the local police to be innocent and, resultantly, the file of this case was consigned to the record after closing the investigation. The alleged occurrence in this case had taken place on 23-3-2001 and after more than four years of the said occurrence Zahoor Elahi complainant ventured to make a supplementary statement before the Investigating Officer on 23-6-2005 maintaining therein that he had by then come to know that it was Muhammad Nawaz alias Naji petitioner who had in fact committed the murder of Karam Elahi deceased which murder had been seen by Muhammad Nadeem and Muhammad Azeem P.Ws. It is of critical importance to mention here that the newly introduced eye-witness namely Muhammad Nadeem happens to be a brother of the complainant besides being a brother of Karam Elahi deceased and the other newly introduced eye-witness namely Muhammad Azeem happens to be a son of Zahoor Elahi complainant and a nephew of Karam Elahi deceased. It has intrigued me to learn that such closely related eye-witnesses had kept quiet in the matter for more than four years and had come forward to implicate the petitioner in the murder of Karam Elahi deceased for thefirst time through their statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. On 24-6- 2005. Apparently the petitioner had no motive to commit the alleged murder and there is nothing available on the record to connect the brick recovered in this case with the alleged offence or with the petitioner. A challan has by now been submitted against the petitioner before the learned trial Court and the petitioner is languishing in judicial lock-up. I am constrained to observe that in the above mentioned circumstances of this case I have found it to be nothing but outrageous that the Prosecution Branch had thought it fit to forward a challan against the petitioner, the learned District Attorney had found it appropriate to submit such a challan before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court had deemed it proper to take cognizance of the case and the learned trial Court (Mian Khadim Hussain, Additional Sessions Judge, A Lahore) had found it apt to refuse bail to the petitioner after finding reasonable grounds to believe in the petitioner's involvement in the alleged murder! It is expected that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore would be more careful in future while dealing with matters involving liberty of citizens.
3. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
4. Before parting with this order it may be clarified that the observations made in the present order shall always be deemed to be and treated as tentative in nature and limited to the purposes of the present petition for bail only and the same shall not prejudice the learned trial Court in any manner vis-a-vis the main case.