' MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.--- Shahbaz petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,268, registered at Police Station Zahir Pir, on 3-7-2006, for offences under sections 302/34, P.P.C. And 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. Succinctly, the prosecution story put forward by the complainant is that she on 3-7-2006 along with her daughter Mst. Shamshad Bibi aged about 14/15 years, her brother Akram and Anwar Mai wife of her brother Aslam went to cut the grass from a sugarcane crop of local Zamindar; that after cutting the grass, daughter of the complainant made a bundle and took it to her house, time and again. After a short while the said Akram and Anwar Mai also went towards the house with the bundles of grass. The complainant's daughter Shamshad also went behind them with the assurance to come back after making the cattle drink water but after a lapse of noticeable time she did not return. Then the complainant went to her house where Anwar Mai wife of her brother and Hanifan daughter of complainant disclosed that Shamshad had gone to collect the grass.
Thereafter, the complainant along with Akram her brother, Sabir her neighbour went in search of Shamshad. When they reached in the cotton crop of Haji Akbar Maril, they saw Shamshad Bibi in naked condition and found her dead, her hands and feet were tied with scarf of Shamshad Bibi and Shalwar was tightly tied around the neck of deceased. On hearing hue and cry, people of the vicinity were attracted to the spot. Motive behind the scene was that four months prior to the registration of the case, Pervaiz and Malik nephews of the complainant molested her daughter Shamshad Akhtar, who was going near sugarcane crop, for which they were reprimanded by the complainant and other relatives. They had friendly relations with the petitioner and Ashiq co- accused. The complainant suspected that they had committed the murder.
3. It is contended that it is an unseen occurrence; that the petitioner has been involved merely on the basis of suspicion; that the petitioner is not connected with the motive part of the case as the motive is merely attributable to Pervaiz co-accused; that the petitioner is behind the bars since 27- 6-2006; and that during investigation as well the petitioner was not found to be connected with the case.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the State has opposed this application, however, contends that the Investigating Officer according to his conclusion, did not find the petitioner to be involved in the case as there was no such evidence with him.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. It appears that it was an unseen occurrence. The complainant had implicated the present petitioner on the basis of suspicion but during investigation she could not substantiate her suspicion before the Investigating Officer as well. The petitioner is not connected with the motive. In this view of the matter petitioner's case requires further enquiry. Resultantly, he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds 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.