KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.-Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that F.I.R, was lodged on 3-3-2006 while occurrence , had taken place on 25-1-2006; that he was not named in the F.I.R.; that he was named in the supplementary statement which was recorded on 4-3-2006; that petitioner is brother-in-law of the deceased; that according to F.I.R, there was one injury on the person of deceased and thereafter a board was constituted according to which six injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased; that no recovery was effected from him and that case of petitioner is of further inquiry.
2. On the other hand learned State counsel submits that in two investigations the Investigating Officer had come to the conclusion that petitioner is left on the mercy of the Court; that son of the deceased had made a statement after two months of the occurrence that he had seen the petitioner while giving poisoned water to the deceased but admits that there is no evidence on record.
3. Heard. Though the case was registered 1 month and 7 days after the occurrence but the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. Supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded after two months of the occurrence. I have gone through the statement of son of the deceased that he had seen the petitioner while giving poisoned water to the deceased but there is no report of Chemical Examiner in this regard. Nothing was recovered from the petitioner. In this view of the matter, in my considered opinion, case against the petitioner is of further inquiry falling under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is accepted and petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs-. 100,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (J) of this Court.