Hakim Muhammad Afzal petitioner has moved this petition for pre---arrest bail in a case registered against him and his brothers Muhammad Ilyas and Muhammad Abbas under section 302/34, P. P. C.
2. According to the F. I. R., the case of the prosecution is that on the night between 19-20 January, 1981, Shameer complainant and Bashir Ahmad were sleeping in the hotel of the latter, situated in Shahkot Town. At about midnight some body knocked the door, upon which the complainant opened the door and then all of a sudden the petitioner and his co-accused Muhammad Ilyas armed with hatchets and Muhammad Abbas with chhuri got into the room. The petitioner gave a hatchet blow to Bashir Ahmad who was asleep hitting the back side of the head. Muhammad Ilyas inflicted a blow on his chin and Muhammad Abbas gave a chhuri blow on his neck. Out of fear Shameer complainant ran outside and started raising alarm attracting Muhammad Ashraf, Liaqat and Khan. They tried to apprehend the petitioner and his co-accused but they threatened them with dire consequences and fled away. Bashir Ahmad succumbed to his injuries at the spot.
A dispute between the petitioner on one side and the deceased and his brothers on the other over the possession of a shop is stated to be the motive for the offence. A number of cases were previously registered in connection with the dispute relating to the said shop.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the occurrence took place at mid-night and the F.I.R. Was lodged on the following morning at 7 a. m., although the Police Post, Shahkot was at a distance of half a furlong from the place of occurrence. He further submitted that previously the petitioner was involved by the complainant party in two cases of serious nature but the same were cancelled having been found false. He further submitted that at the relevant time the petitioner was admitted in the hospital and all the respectables of Shahkot have sworn affidavits exonera--ting him. Lastly he submitted that Khan Muhammad, an alleged eye--witness, who is closely related to the deceased, has sworn affidavit to the effect that actual culprits are some other persons and the petitioner and his brothers have been implicated on mere suspicion and that Muhammad Ashraf, another alleged eye-witness, has made a statement under section 164, Cr. P. C. To the effect that he had not seen the occurrence. Referring to the post-mortem report, he further pointed out that the medical evidence is in conflict with the F. I. R. Version of the occurrence.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant and the State, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner is named in the F. I. R, fatal injury has been attributed to him, he had a strong motive against the deceased and the alleged affidavit of Khan Muhammad P. W. And the alleged statement of Muhammad Ashraf P. W. Are not genuine, therefore, no ground for bail is made out.
5. I have gone through the relevant material and given my careful consideration to the lengthy arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties. According to the F. I. R., the occurrence took place at mid-night between 19-20th January, 1981. During the course of arguments, it was admitted that Police Post Shahkot was at a distance of about a furlong from the place of occurrence. However, the complainant reported the occurrence to the S. H. O. On the following morning at 7, a. m. On the road side when he was returning to the police station from village Karri Bhait. The F. I. R. Does not contain any explanation for this delay of 7 hours.
6. It is admitted that previously a case under section 307, P. P. C. Was registered against the petitioner at the instance of the complainant party but it was found false and cancelled. It is also admitted that a case under section 364, P. P. C. Was registered against the petitioner on the report of a relative of the complainant party and it remained untraced. The petitioner has filed affidavits of a large number of persons to the effect that the complainant came to know about the murder in the morning and the petitioner was falsely implicated due to dispute over property.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner produced affidavit of an alleged eye-witness, namely, Khan, to the effect that he reached the spot on hearing alarm at 7 a. m. And found that Bashir Ahmed had been murdered. He further stated therein that the complainant and other alleged eyewit--ness reached the spot after him and that the petitioner and his brothers were innocent. A copy of the statement of another eye-witness, namely, Muhammad Ashraf, recorded by the Ilaqa Magistrate was also produced. It is to the effect that on hearing the alarm he reached the spot at 7 a. m. And there he came to know that Bashir Ahmad had been murdered. In the said statement Muhammad Ashraf further stated that he had not seen the occurrence. Khan Muhammad and Muhammad Ashraf P. Ws, however, appeared during the hearing of this petition and denied having sworn affidavit and made the aforesaid statements. The case was lastly investigated by Mukhtar Ahmad, D. S. P., Ferozwala. He submitted that though the entries regarding the admission and discharge of the petitioner in the register maintained at Civil Dispensary, Nankana Sahib, were of dubious nature yet his involvement in this occurrence was doubtful as a large number of respectables appeared to plead innocence for him and his co-accused and a large number of affidavits to the same effect were also produced during the investigation.
The upshot of the above discussion is that there is unexplained delay of seven hours in reporting the occurrence to the police; there was sever enmity between the parties and previously the complainant party lodged two cases of serious nature against the petitioner out of which one was found false and cancelled and the other remained untraced. Lastly, in the A opinion of the investigating officer of the rank of D. P. S, the involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence is doubtful. I am, therefore, of the view that the case of the petitioner needs further enquiry.
Accordingly his interim bail is confirmed.