1. ' SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.---This bail application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner in F.I.R. No, 49 of 2003, dated 24-1-2003. The said F.I.R. Stands registered at Police Station Khanqah Dogran, District Sheikhpura under sections 302/34 and 109, P.P.C.
2. ' According to the F.I.R., the petitioner and co-accused are alleged to have kidnapped complainant's brother, Zaka Ullah and thereafter killed him at some unknown place.
3. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no motive is attributed in the F.I.R. The occurrence is unwitnessed. He also submits that first inspection note by the Investigating Officer reveals that the deceased died of electric shock. The post mortem examination report also indicates the fact of electrocution. The Line Superintendent also stated before the Investigating Officer that the deceased died of electric shock. The report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Also hints at the same cause of death of the deceased.
4. ' The learned counsel for the State submits that name of the petitioner is mentioned in the F.I.R. She also submits that he has been absconder for five months. However, she also concedes that in Investigation it came on the record that the deceased might have been killed by an electric shock.
5. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and consulted record with their assistance.
6. ' The learned counsel for the State read the zimni written by S.-I. Shabbir Hussain. According to which, the deceased died of electric shock. The Investigating Officer Shabbir Hussain further recorded in his zimni that no eye-witness could be produced before him to testify 'that the deceased was murdered by the petitioner or somebody else.
7. ' The petitioner has been behind the bars since 11-5-2004, i.e, 14 months. According to the learned State counsel, only one witness has been examined so far. The police station falls within a new created district, Nankana Sahib, therefore, the case is now to be transferred to the new Sessions Court, therefore, it is not likely that it will be concluded in the near future. The above facts and arguments lead to the belief that the present case is a case of further inquiry as envisaged in subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This application is, therefore, allowed in view of the above discussion subject to petitioner's furnishing surety bonds of Rs,100,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.