' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---Through this petition Tahir petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.607 registered at Police Station, Pindi Bhattian, District Hafizabad on 30-7-2004 in respect of offences under sections 302/ 148/149, P.P.C. During the investigation sections 148 and 149, P.P.C. Were deleted from the F.I.R. And the same were substituted by 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 according to the F.I.R. Itself the alleged murder had remained unwitnessed. It is not disputed that the petitioner's name had not figured in the F.I.R. In any capacity whatsoever. The petitioner's name had surfaced in this case for the first time on 16-9- 2004, i.e. After about a month and a half after registration of the F.I.R. Through a supplementary statement made by the complainant and according to that supplementary statement the petitioner was one of the two unknown persons mentioned in the F.I.R. Which unknown persons had been seen by the complainant running away from the place of occurrence along with the nominated accused persons. On 19-9-2004 Ghazanfar Abbas and Liaquat Ali P.Ws. Had got their statements recorded under A section 161, Cr.P.C. And they had claimed therein that they had seen the petitioner and others taking the deceased away just before his murder. Even in those statements no specific role had been attributed to the petitioner and the allegation levelled against him was couched in generalized and collective terms. During the investigation a rope had allegedly been recovered at the instance of the petitioner and his co-accused but it is admitted at all =hands that such recovery was a joint recovery and, thus, its evidentiary value appears to be quite suspect. Apart from that there is nothing available on the record to connect the recovered rope with the alleged murder. There is no other direct or indirect evidence available on the record so as to incriminate the petitioner. The challan in this case has already been submitted after completion of the investigation and, thus, continued custody of the petitioner in jail is not likely to serve any beneficial purpose at this stage.
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 two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.