' SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.---Criminal Miscellaneous. 1993-B of 2007 seeking post-arrest bail on behalf of petitioners Manzoor Hussain and Noor Muhammad, arises from case F.I.R. No. 265, dated 26-11-2005 registered with Police Station Sarwar Shaheed District Muzafargarh for offence under sections 302/324/337-A(ii), F-(v) read with section 34, P.P.C.
2. Complainant Abdul Ghafoor precisely discloses in the F.I.R. That petitioners in furtherance of their common intention, in addition to the murder of Zafar Iqbal also inflicted injuries to him. Motive for the occurrence is that petitioners wanted to marry the daughter of the complainant to their son, but on his refusal to accede to such proposal, they launched the murderous attack.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that no fatal injury whatsoever has been assigned to both the petitioners, and the alleged Sota blow attributed to petitioner Manzoor Hussain on the arm ofZafar Iqbal deceased and that Sota below ascribed to petitioner Noor Muhammad on the person of complainant, were opined to be simple and minor in nature. That it was a sudden flare up without any element of deliberation and premeditation and that both the petitioners who happen to be the father and uncle of the main accused have been implicated falsely to teach an unforgettable lesson to the whole family. It is alleged that Akram accused was also injured but the prosecution suppressed his injuries.
4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the grant of bail on the ground that petitioners are categorically named with specific attribution and that sharing of their common intention with the main accused is predominately manifest. Adds that Sotas have also been recovered at their instance and that the trial has commenced.
5. Admittedly, complainant and both the petitioners are real brothers and the motive clearly speaks of family dispute over an intending marriage, to which complainant was least inclined.
Apparently, a wide net has been thrown to involve even the age men from the family of the accused side. An other vital aspect of the matter emerging for consideration is that both the petitioners are in continuous detention ever since 12-12-2005 without any progress in the trial and the conclusion thereof is not in sight in the near future notwithstanding issuance of A direction by this Court for its expeditious conclusion. And their further detention would be hardly significant for the prosecution case.
6. For the foregoing facts and reasons, I am fully convinced that facts and circumstances of the case attract the provision of further inquiry and it is a fit case for interference and exercise of discretion in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, I direct that they shall be released on bail provided they furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.