On the information given by Ashiq Ali, the complainant just two hours after the occurrence that took place at 3.00 a.m. in between the night of 22/23.11.2007 the local police of Police Station Ahmad Yar, District Pakpattan Sharif registered a case u/S. 302/34 PPC vide FIR No, 222 dated 23.11.2007 for the murder of Abdul Hameed, father of the complainant by three un-known persons of medium height and physique wearing Shaiwar Qamiz and equipped with .12 bore gun and pistols who had knocked at the door of the complainant's house and asked his father, having brought some money.
On hearing this conversation of the complainant with the said persons when his father Abdul Hameed and mother Mst. Sakhian Bibi too emerged from the other room, the one armed with .12 bore gun fired straight at him which hit his father below the abdomen, as a result of which he fell down. Ahmad Bakhsh and Abdul Ghaffar were attracted to the occurrence. He was taken to Arifwala Hospital but died on reaching there. Maqsood Ahmad alias Rana, the petitioner was involved on the basis of supplementary statements of Riaz Ahmad, Muhammad Abbas, Fiaz Ahmad and Wakeel Ahmad, the witnesses of Waj Takkar recorded on 13.1.2008, who had allegedly seen him alongwith his co-accused passing near by them at about 2.30 a.m. in the night between 22/23.11.2007.
2. This petition has been opposed by the learned Deputy Prosecutor General.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. Attention of this Court has been drawn to the order dated 22.4.2008 passed by my learned brother Mazhar Hussain Minhas, J granting to Muhammad Sajid co-accused to make a point that role of the present petitioner is similar to the one assigned to him and so on the basis of rule of consistency the petitioner too deserves the similar treatment.
5. On the other hand, learned Law Officer submits that on the basis of the statements of the aforesaid PWs the petitioner stands involved in this case and since the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. he deserves no leniency. But careful perusal of record shows that the case of the petitioner squarely falls within the purview of further inquiry. According to the contents of the FIR the accused persons firstly asked for complainant's father who had brought some money into his home but instead of making any effort to get that money made a straight fire at Abdul Hameed. The FIR is silent as to any valuable thing taken away from the house of the complainant during the occurrence. Therefore, possibility that the occurrence may not have taken place in the manner as suggested by the complainant cannot be ruled out.
6. Secondly, after a lapse of more than seven weeks the aforesaid PWs suddenly came up with the evidence of Waj Takkar despite the fact that they belong to the same village giving no explanation as to what prevented them to disclose the evidence of Waj Takkar to the complainant. Tile petitioner is also admittedly resident of the same village and since the FIR is silent as to whether the petitioner or his co-accused had muffled their faces, failure on the part of the complainant to identify the petitioner does not make any sense.
7. As regards the role of the petitioner it appears to be at par with that of Muhammad Sajid, who has already been granted the concession of bail on the basis of observation made by my learned brother Mazhar Hussain Minhas, J. that the fire-arm injury was attributed to Abdul Majeed only and not to the present petitioner.
For what has been discussed above, I find it a fit case for the concession of bail and allow the petitioner bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.