' MALIK SAEED EJAZ, J. Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,92 of 2007, dated 23-2-2007 under section 302/34 registered at Police. Station, Ghalla Mandi, District Sahiwal.
2. The F.I.R. Was lodged on the statement of Ch. Sardar Muhammad (complainant). Brief facts of the case as narrated in the F.I.R. Are that on 23-2-2007 at about 2-00 p.m. When the complainant was present in his house along with his grandson Muhammad Saleem, Faisal accused came to the house of the complainant and invited Muhammad Saleem to go with him to his house. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. That at about 3-00 p.m. When alleged witness Muhammad Tufail (brother of the complainant) and Muhammad Naseem (grandson of the complainant) were passing through the house of Faisal accused, they heard a noise which was coming from the top storey of the house of Faisal. The witnesses rushed to the house of Faisal where the petitioner met them and inquired from him that what had happened, the petitioner replied by saying that "since Muhammad Saleem deceased had disgraced his son Faisal and Faisal had taken revenge of it." The witnesses went to the spot and saw Muhammad Saleem in expired position. The motive as narrated in the F.I.R. That two days prior to the occurrence Muhammad Saleem deceased quarrelled with Faisal accused but due to the interference of the respectables, the matter was patched up. Lastly it is mentioned in the F.I.R. That all the accused with common intention murdered Muhammad Saleem deceased by taking revenge from him.
3. The petitioner had applied his post-arrest bail before the learned Addl.: Sessions Judge, Sahiwal which was dismissed vide order, dated 14-1-2008. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached to this Court for seeking his post-arrest bail through this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely involved in this case. He further submits that the alleged occurrence is unwitnessed and this fact can be verified from the contents of the F.I.R.
' He further, submits that the petitioner has been shown empty handed and he has not caused any injury to the deceased. Nothing has been recovered from him. The motive of the alleged occurrence is not attributed to the petitioner. He contends that the petitioner has been declared innocent during the investigation and he has been involved being head of the family. Lastly argued that only one injury was sustained by the deceased which is specifically attributed to the co- accused Faisal who brought the deceased to his house by giving invitation to him. On the other hand the learned D.P.G. Submits that the F.I.R. Was promptly lodged and the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. With a specific role. He further submits that the motive is also attributed to the petitioner.
Lastly he argued that since the offence is of heinous nature and the petitioner is not entitled to bail.
5. After hearing the arguments of both the parties, it has been established from the record that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. And only one fire shot was made to the deceased, which is attributed to co-accused namely Faisal who is son of the petitioner. It is an admitted fact as confirmed by both the parties that on the fateful day Basant Festival was going on and the alleged occurrence had taken place on the top roof of the house. It is not denied by either of the parties that the occurrence was not sighted by the witnesses as mentioned in the F.I.R. And it is also not denied by the learned D.P.G./Law Officer that the petitioner was seen empty handed and no injury was attributed to him. Declaration of the police regarding innocence of the petitioner though is not binding upon the Court but such findings, cannot be thrown away without examining other facts of the case. Since the petitioner was empty handed and no injury was attributed to him. The petitioner is declared innocent by the police. The motive of the occurrence is also not attributed to the petitioner as Faisal, co-accused is a person who brought the deceased to his house and who has stated to be fired at the deceased. The witnesses, as cited in the F.I.R., alleged, that they saw the deceased at the spot in expired position meaning thereby they have not seen the occurrence. The petitioner is behind the bars since the day of occurrence and the trial is yet to be started.
6. The petitioner is admitted the head of the family whose two sons are involved in this case and possibility of his false involvement in this case cannot be ruled out. Hence the case of the petitioner is of further inquiry. By accepting this petition, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 each with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.