' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---This order shall also decide Criminal Miscellaneous No,2883-B of 2006 as it arises out of the same F.I.R.
2. The petitioners in both these cases seek post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,21, registered with-Police Station Budhla Sant, Multan on 22-2-2006 for an offence under section 302/34, P.P.C.
3. The petitioners were arrested on 1-5-2006. Their bail applications have been dismissed by a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan on 27-6-2006.
4. Learned counsel contends that upon a plain reading of the F.I.R. It is an unwitnessed occurrence and the case has been lodged on the basis of suspicion whereas till date no evidence is available implicating the petitioners in the said crime. Learned counsel for the State in both these cases opposes the bail applications.
5. I have gone through the records. Now according to the contents of the said F.I.R. Allah Ditta complainant stated on 22-2-2006 at 7.40 p.m. At Police Station Budhla Sant that his son Muhammad Imran aged 11/12 years used to work in the motorcycle shop of Muhammad Altaf. On 24-1-2006 he came to his house from Tatapur at 11.30 a.m. To deliver the stitched clothes and thereafter he left for Tatapur. On his way unknown persons abducted him and the matter was reported at the police station on 26-1-2006. On 22-2-2006 at 6.30 p.m. Sadiq Muhammad informed him that from a garden a body of a child has been found. He went along with the witnesses named in the F.I.R. And identified the skeleton as that of his child. He expressed his suspicion that Manzoor Hussain and Hafeez petitioners in these two cases along with Abdul Sattar have killed his son for the reason that earlier there had been a scuffle between them and accused persons and they had threatened to kill them.
6. I do find that no one has witnessed the occurrence and the case has been lodged only on the basis of suspicion. I also do not find any material on record to support the contents of the F.I.R. The Investigating Officers have repeatedly opined that the petitioners are innocent. This may not be binding but in the over all circumstances of the case it is certainly one of further inquiry. Both the Cr.Ms. Are allowed and the petitioners are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one hundred thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.