Earlier I had confirmed bail before arrest of co-accused of the present petitioners, namely, Muhammad Amin and Muhammad Nazir in Crl. Misc. No, 4680/B/2003. This is an after arrest bail petition on behalf of the present petitioners.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that case of the present petitioners is on similar footing to those who were allowed bail before arrest by this Court, that petitioners are named in the FIR, that in FIR five persons were mentioned but they were found innocent by the police and on 20.6.2003 complainant gave an application to the Higher Police Officer implicating the present petitioners and others and that case of the present petitioners is of further inquiry falling under subsection (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C.
3. On the other hand learned counsel for the State submits that in an earlier application five accused were named, who were found to be innocent and that was lodged by brother of the deceased being an eyewitness, that now five other persons including the present petitioners have been named in another application which was submitted more than two months after the occurrence that's, on 20.6.2003. He further submits that there is no legal evidence against the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel of the complainant submits that occurrence had taken place in the night. so the accused were not identified properly that new there is evidence of extra judicial confession against the present petitioners, that recovery was also effected from both the petitioners, that charge has been framed and case is going to be started and that offence alleged against the petitioners falls within the ambit of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In the instant case, Haji Muhammad Munir brother of the deceased being an eyewitnesses shown two co-accused persons, namely, Allah Rakha and Haider Ali to be present at the spot, who have committed the murder of the deceased while three co-accused were shown as abettor, even the names of the witnesses of abetment were also mentioned but on one fine morning, that's, on 20.6.2003 complainant submitted an application implicating the present petitioners and others, out of whom two were allowed bail before arrest as mentioned above. There is no evidence except extra judicial confession and the recovery of licensed weapon from Petitioner No, 1 and un-licensed fire-arm from Petitioner No, 2,as has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners even the learned state counsel has submitted that there is no legal evidence against the petitioners. As the petition were not named in the FIR so their case is on similar footing to those who were allowed bail before arrest by this Court. therefore this petition is accepted. Petitioners are allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the tune of Rs, 50,000/- (Fifty thousand) each with one surety each in the like-amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
Copy of this order shall be sent to D.I.G. Faisalabad within three days from today for the reasons that there is a tendency in our society even to falsely implicate of innocent persons in cases like murder etc. In the instant case. Haji Muhammad Munir, who claimed himself and two others as an eye-witness had also implicated innocent persons in this case; it means that FIR, which was lodged by him, was a bundle of lies. DIG, Faisalabad is directed to ask SHO concerned to register a case against the complainant and the eye-witnesses mentioned in the FIR u/S. 194 PPC so that an example should be created that people should be stopped from this practice. Copy of the FIR shall be submitted to D.R (Judi) of this Court within 10 days.