' SH. ABDUL RASHID, J.-The petitioner through this petition seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,331 of 2004, dated 22-4-2004 under sections 302/324/ M8/149/109, P.P.C, registered at Police tation Qila Gujjar Singh, Lahore, on the report of Iftikhar Hussain complainant.
2. The facts of the prosecution case set up in the F.I.R, are that some 8/9 months before the present occurrence, five persons had been murdered near Awain-e-Adal in which Sultan Mehmood alias Bichu had lodged the F.I.R. The aforesaid case was being pursued by Zafar Nat brother of Iftikhar Hussain complainant on behalf of accused party of the earlier case due to his close relationship with the said co-accused. For the said reasons the complainant party of the earlier case became inimical towards Zafar Nat and conveyed the message to him to desist from pursuing the case against them and also threatened him with dire consequences.
3. On 22-4-2005 at about 10.15 a.m. While Zafar Nat was on his way to Sessions Court in the company of Zulfiqar Baig, Afzal, Zaheer Ahmad Khan and Rashid Butt in Car No,LXG-929 to pursue the said case and when the car reached near traffic signal of Chowk Lakshami, it had to stop due to red signal. At that time five persons namely Mustafa, Shahid alias Guddu, Muhammad Rafique alias Shazada, Arif Amir alias Tippu and Shafiq-ur-Rehman alias Bhola Gadi who were already present there in a car along with three unknown persons all armed with fire-arms emerged out of their vehicle and started indiscriminate firing on the car of Zafar Nat. As a result of their firing all the occupants of the car received injuries on the different parts of their bodies and as a result Zulfiqar Baig, Afzal and Rashid Butt died on the spot. Zaheer Ahmad also received injuries and died later on and while a passerby Munawar also received injuries. On the alarm raised by Iftikhar Hussain, Muhammad Qaider and Najam Naseer many persons gathered there, whereas, culprits made good their escape. Iftikhar Hussain complainant further alleged that a day earlier Sohail Iqbal and Usman Ahmad had informed Zafar Nat deceased of an incident that they had gone to Truck Adda of Khalid Mehmood in connection with an urgent business where Sultan Mehmood alias Bichu, Khalid Mehmood alias Bhatti Pehalwan, Malik Iftikhar Ahmad and Malik Ilyas were conspiring with each other to commit the murder of Zafar Nat who whs not desisting from pursuing the case F.I.R.
No,277 of 2003, registered at Police Station Islampura, Lahore and at that time Arif Amir alias Tippu' was also present there and the said four accused had told the said Arif Amir alias Tippu to get Zafar Nat and other murdered by his gang and assured them of their full financial and other help and as a result of their said instigation this occurrence-had been committed.
4. It is pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that the F.I.R, in this ease has been lodged by Iftikhar Hussain complainant who claims to be an eyewitness of the occurrence and he had not named the petitioner as one of the culprit and did not attribute any role whatsoever to him and also did not disclose his identity while lodging the F.I.R. On 22-4-2004 and that on the same day the complainant got recorded his supplementary statement in which he introduced some more eyewitnesses and their statements were subsequently recorded by the police and even they did not name the petitioner to be one of the culprits or disclosed about his presence at the scene and that subsequently on 4-5-2004 through second supplementary statement {he complainant tried to implicate the petitioner by stating that he had come to know through reliable source that the petitioner was also present along with five co-accused nominated in the F.I.R, and had participated in the firing which resulted in the deaths of five deceased and that had the petitioner been present then being eye-witness of the occurrence the complainant would not have missed out his name and that all the five co- accused with whom the petitioner had been alleged to have participated in the occurrence have been exonerated by the police during investigation and that the petitioner's implication in this case has been made on the strength of source of information which had not been revealed in the supplementary statement and as such it constitute hearsay evidence which is inadmissible in evidence and the case of the petitioner would be a matter of further inquiry.
5. The perusal of the record reveals that F.I.R, in this case had been lodged by the complainant who claims to be an eyewitness of the occurrence. In the F.I.R, he had named only five persons who resorted to firing as a result of which the deceased had received injuries and expired. After lodging of the F.I.R, the complainant then got recorded supplementary statement on the same day in which he introduced some persons which he had missed out as eyewitnesses of the occurrence and even in the said supplementary statement he did not name the petitioner to be one of the culprits who participated in the actual occurrence.
6. It was on 4-5-2004 that through the second supplementary statement the complainant implicated the petitioner by stating that he had learnt from reliable source that the petitioner was also present along with five other co-accused who stand nominated in the F.I.R, and that he had also resorted to firing at the deceased. The source of his information has not' been revealed to the Investigating Agency and again the said source had not been examined as a witness to support the factum that the said information was passed on to the complainant. Therefore, the material on the basis of which the complainant had implicated the petitioner in the occurrence would be hearsay evidence which is inadmissible. Even if the complainant's allegations against the petitioner are accepted on their face value according to his supplementary statement the petitioner had joined the five other co-accused in the firing at the deceased. The said five other co-accused during police investigation, have been declared innocent and exonerated from the main occurrence. Therefore, even on that score, the petitioner's involvement in the occurrence becomes a matter of further inquiry. The complainant in this case has been making different statement on different occasions and his statement implicating the petitioner is based on hearsay material which makes the case of the petitioner a matter of further inquiry and as such he is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.