' WAQAR HASSAN MIR, J.---The petitioner through the instant petition seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,866 of 2006 dated 18-11-2006 offence under sections 302, 201, 395, 34, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura.
2. The version of the complainant as per the F.I.R. Is that his father and stepmother were living in Khan Town, Ferozewala and was running a body building club and grocery shop in his house. On 14-11-2006 at about 6.00 p.m., he talked to his father on phone. On 15-11-2006 at 9.30 p.m. Nadeem Ahmad son of Salah-ud-Din resident of Khan Town, who is his relative, informed the complainant that his father after selling the house has left the same and he should take the household articles.
Then he tried to contact his father but he could not. The complainant contacted Waheed Butt, a friend of his father, who told him that the house is locked and Nadeem says that his father has left the house after selling the same. On 16-11-2006, Nadeem Ahmad again contacted the complainant and told that Waheed Butt is terrorizing from living in the house. Ultimately, the complainant along with maternal uncle Chand and Asif reached there and found the house locked. The tenant informed that the petitioner has arranged to put the clay in the house with the help of tractor, which led the complainant to suspicion and on digging the earth, the dead bodies of his father and stepmother were found, to whom Nadeem Ahmad, Waheed Butt and some unknown persons murdered. Hence this F.I.R.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the F.I.R. Was lodged on 18-1-2006, whereas no date of occurrence is mentioned in the same; that four accused have been involved in this case and during investigation, no cellular data was collected by the I.O. That there is mention of petitioner call in the F.I.R. But no data in respect of the same was collected. Further submits that the whereabouts of the tenant are not known; that the case of the complainant is totally based upon circumstantial evidence; that two co-accused of the petitioner namely Fida Hussain and Muhammad Nawaz have been granted bail by this court vide order dated 19-5-2008 and 2-7-2008 in Crl. Misc. No,1660-B of 2008 and 4945-B of 2008 respectively; that first bail petition of the petitioner was withdrawn, with a direction to the learned trial Court to conclude the trial within a period of four months. Further submits that the case of the petitioner is at par with that of co- accused; that the recovery of household articles is planted one; that according to the postmortem reports of the deceased, the death has been caused due to the injuries caused by fire shots of pistols. Further submits that the petitioner was arrested on 18-11-2006 and is behind the bars for the last about three years and seven months; that the statements of the complainant as well as formal witnesses have been recorded and the P.Ws. Chand and Asif have been given up being unnecessary.
4. On the other hand, the learned DPG submits that it is a double murder case and the motive is attributed to the petitioner as he has put clay in the house with the help of tractor; that during the course of investigation, he could not produce any sort of evidence about his innocence and found guilty. Further submits that the challan was submitted in the learned trial Court on 28-9-2007 and as far the delay in trial is concerned, there is no copy of interim orders to show why the delay was occasioned.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. The case is totally based on circumstantial evidence and the police/I.O. Has not collected any cellular data by way of which one can assess that .The calls were made by the accused/his accomplice to the complainant and P.Ws. Two of the co-accused have already been granted bail by this court, therefore, petitioner claims the same treatment and as earlier bail petition of the petitioner was withdrawn from this court with a direction to the learned trial Court to conclude the trial with a period of four months but now fourteen months have passed and the trial is not concluded. I may mention here that speedy trial is a right of an accused. In these circumstances of the case, I have been persuaded to hold that the case for his enlargement on bail has been made out.
7. Therefore, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail in the sum of Rs,200,000 (Rupees two lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.