' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.--- Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no direct evidence against the petitioner and there is only so called evidence of Wajtakar and last seen, that nothing has been recovered from the petitioner; that the petitioner cannot be connected with the motive, that the petitioner is a infirm and sick person, in this regard he had referred to para.3 of order, dated 23-8-2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, because according to doctor posted at District Jail, Lahore, the petitioner needed surgical intervention, which facility was not available in the Jail Hospital. In these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to bail.
2. Conversely learned D.P.-G. Assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that petitioner is connected with the motive; that there is evidence of Wajtakar furnished by Muhammad Salim and Imran, who had seen the petitioner and his co-accused Suleman while coming down from the stairs of the house of deceased at that time they were worried; that there is another evidence of wife of the deceased, who had stated that while she was leaving the house the deceased went along with petitioner and his co-accused, that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record as well as first information report. It was stated that the deceased had taken the house on mortgage from the petitioner. Learned counsel has referred to the mortgage deed, which has not been denied specifically by learned counsel the complainant which was between Mst. Saeeda Begum wife of Liaqat Ali, who had stated that she is sister of Muhammad Shafi who owns the house. She entered into agreement of mortgage with Muhammad Naeem-deceased. This mortgage deed was for two years and was to be expired on 20-1-2008. The petitioner neither owner nor having general or special power of attorney on behalf of Mst. Saeeda Begum or Muhammad Shafi owner of the house. Thus prima facie, while assessing the evidence tentatively the petitioner is not connected with the motive. On recovery has been effected from him. There is no eyewitness, who had seen the petitioner while committing murder of the deceased. Now we left with the statements of Muhammad Salim and Imran, who had seen the petitioner and his co-accused coming down from the stairs of the house of deceased and the statement of deceased's wife that she had seen the deceased along with petitioner and his co-accused. Taking into consideration the case on merits coupled with the report of Jail Doctor that the petitioner requires surgical intervention, which facility is not available in Jail Hospital, it is a case of further inquiry and also falls within the first proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. In these circumstances, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is granted bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rupees one Lac, with one surety, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.