After the rejection of their applications for bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate and learned Additional Sessions Judge-V D.I.Khan vide orders dated 29.8.2007 and 12.10.2007 respectively in case FIR No, 222 dated 25/7/2007 registered at Police Station Gomal University D.I.Khan under Sections 302/147/148 PPC, the accused/petitioners Asmatullah, Jehangir, Allah Ditta and Abdul Rashid have moved this Court for the same purpose through the application in hand.
2. The prosecution story as narrated by the complainant Muhammad lqbal in his first report lodged to the local police on 14/7/2007 at 1630 hours is that he was informed by his nephew, named Muhammad Saleem on Mobile Phone about the presence of an unidentified and partially decomposed dead body in his field situated within the limits of Mouza Khiyara which was taken into possession and sent to the hospital for post-mortem examination. After making it public in the locality by the police, Muhammad Ramzan, identified the dead body and stated that on 16/7/2007 his son named Muhammad Nazeer had come to the house ar Sham Vela and after changing clothes had gone out and his whereabouts were not known. After making search, he came to know that his said son was done to death by Abdur Rahman, Amanullah and Allah Ditta as the deceased was having illicit relations with Mst. Rashida Bibi daughter of accused Abdur Rahman and wife of accused Amanullah, hence they were booked for the instant offence.
3. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the/accused/petitioners are innocent and falsely charged for the offence; that there is no eye-witness to the occurrence; that there is no independent corroborative evidence in support of the prosecution case; that investigation in the case is complete and the accused/petitioners are no more required for the purposes of investigation.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for State resisted the bail prayer of the petitioners on the grounds that they during the course of investigation and inquiry have admitted the commission of the crime; that they have pointed the place of occurrence and the spot to the police where the dead body was allegedly thrown in the mud and, therefore, they are reasonably linked with commission of the offence. In support of their contentions, reliance was placed on the case law reported as Mst.
Rashid Begum Vs. Abdul Rashid and others (1990 SCM R 579).
5. After going through the record carefully and considering the arguments advanced at the bar; I am, however, of the considered view that the case of the petitioners is of further inquiry; Firstly because that the complainant Muhammad Ramzan on 20/7/2007 first charged three persons, namely, Abdul Rehman, Amanullah and Allah Ditta for the commission of the offence. However, subsequently on 5/8/2007, he submitted an application to the local police and charged Jehangir, Asmatullah and Abdul Rashid alias Kalu, besides the other accused; Secondly that there is no direct ocular evidence against them, Thirdly that there is no independent corroborative evidence to reasonably connect them with the offence and Fourthly; that from the available facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution case is full of doubts and defects. All these facts when taken together, prima facie, provides reasonable grounds for believing that the accused/petitioners are not guilty of the offence charged with and that there are sufficient grounds for further enquiry into their, guilt entitling them to the discretionary relief of bail. The above' observations are however, tentative in nature and shall not prejudice case of either party at trial.
6. Resultantly, this application is allowed and the accused/petitioners are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds each in the sum of Rs, one lac with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Judicial Magistrate. Above are the reasons for my short order of even date.