' HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.--- Petitioner seeks' post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,104 of 2006 dated 29- 3-2006 registered at Police Station Shah Kot, Tehsil Chichawatni, District Sahiwal in respect of offence under section 302/34, P.P.C.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details the prosecution story as unfurled in the F.I.R. Lodged at the instance of Mustafa complainant is that Mst. Kausar Bibi co-accused had married Habib (deceased), brother of the complainant. In exchange of said marriage the hand of the complainant's sister namely Munawar Bibi was given to Ramzan, petitioner. According to the complainant the matrimonial affairs between Kausar Bibi co-accused and her husband namely Habib (deceased) did not remain cordial and therefore, litigation between them started. The complainant went on to state that 3/4 days prior to the lodging of the F.I.R. Ramzan petitioner took away Habib (deceased) along with him on the pretext of entering into a compromise but thereafter Habib did not return. On the night between 28/29-3-2006 in the company of witnesses the complainant allegedly visited the village of the accused and found his brother lying unconscious. On his inquiry Allah Ditta, co- accused and Paras Bibi, statedly, informed the complainant that he had consumed some intoxicating material. An effort was, allegedly, made by the complainant to transport the deceased to hospital but he died on the way to the hospital. On the basis of suspicion of administration of some poisonous material by the accused to the deceased, the complainant got the present F.I.R.
Registered.
3. It is second application for the post-arrest bail. First was dismissed as withdrawn on 29-11-2006 with permission to rifle the same after some time.
4. In support of this petition learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is no direct evidence against the petitioner to saddle him with the liability of murder of the deceased; that according to the report of Chemical Examiner, the relevant pieces of organs of the deceased which were sent for analysis did not contain any poison; that in view of the said report the allegation levelled by the prosecution has been falsified and therefore, case against the petitioner required further inquiry. He adds that Allah Ditta, co-accused has already been allowed bail by this Court, therefore on the basis of principle of rule of consistency also the petitioner is entitled to bail.
5. Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application by arguing that the petitioner is specifically named in the F.I.R. And the. Medico-legal report shows that the deceased had received an injury at his testicles.
6. After hearing the arguments put forth by both the sides I have come to the conclusion that admittedly the occurrence in this case was unseen one; that there is no direct evidence against the petitioner to saddle him with the liability of commission of murder of the deceased; that during the investigation no incriminating article was recovered from the possession of the petitioner, that the whole case of the prosecution revolves upon the suspicion that poisonous material was administered by the accused to the deceased but prima facie there is no direct evidence of administration of any poisonous substance to the deceased; that the report of the Chemical Examiner, prima facie, has contradicted the prosecution case while report of the bacteriologist is inconclusive. During the arguments it was disclosed that the petitioner is neither owner nor occupant of the house where the deceased was found lying unconscious. Tentative assessment of the available data, prima facie, leads me to conclude that the allegation levelled against the petitioner requires further inquiry within the meaning of section 497(2), Cr.P.C., to say that lest.
Besides that Allah Ditta, co-accused has already been allowed bail by this Court. The case of the petitioner is at par with that of said co-accused. Therefore, on the principle of rule of consistency also the petitioner who is suffering incarceration since 19-9-2006, is entitled to bail.
7. For what has been stated above, the application in hand is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
8. Before parting with the order, in the peculiar circumstances of the case I would like to direct the learned trial Court to conclude the trial preferably within period of four months. It is further observed that after release of the petitioner on bail if he is found misusing the concession of bail especially in the matter of delaying the trial the complainant would be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of the bail before this Court.