ORDER SARDAR MUHAMMAD SHAMIM KHAN, J.---Furqan Ali and Sanowar Ali, petitioners seek post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.107 of 2010 dated 12-3-2010 for the offences under sections 302, 201, 148 and 149, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Seetal Mari, District Multan.
2. Brief facts of this case are that Aurangzeb lodged instant F.I.R. Contending therein that he along with his friend Rashid was proceeding towards shrine of Peer. Baba and on the way a dead body of one unknown person was lying in the canal. There were signs of rope around the neck of dead body and according to the complainant some unknown persons committed the murder of unknown person and thereafter thrown the dead body in the canal.
3. Subsequently, on 19-3-2010, Baqir Ali identified the dead body of unknown person as dead body of his son Husnain Ali, deceased.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that petitioners were not nominated in the F.I.R.; that it was an unseen occurrence; that petitioners were involved in this case on the basis of supplementary statement of Baqir Ali, father of the deceased, Nasir Ali, brother of complainant and Tasawar Ali, nephew of the complainant; that according to the evidence of aforementioned P.Ws.
There was last seen evidence against the petitioners; that last seen evidence against the petitioners cannot be believed as Baqir Ali, father of the deceased lodged Rapat No.16 on 15-3-2010 at Police Station KUP wherein he contended that on 11-3-2010 at about 8-30 p.m.His son Husnain Ali aged about 18-years was proceeding towards his house from Baqir Cloth House and he missed near Wali Muhammad Mosque; and that he tried his best to search out his son but in vain; that the recoveries of two ropes, GATTO, Cutter and Motorcycle bearing Registration No.4971/MNL from the possession of the petitioners and Imran, co-accused, is joint one; that recoveries of amount of Rs 15,000 and watch from the possession of the petitioners and co-accused Imran is also joint one which is inadmissible in evidence; that there is no direct evidence against the petitioners connecting them with the commission of this offence, therefore, it is prayed that by accepting this petition, petitioners are liable to be released on bail.
5. Learned D.P.-G. And learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed this petition on the ground that although petitioners were not nominated in the F.I.R. And it was an unseen occurrence, yet Husnain Ali, deceased was lastly seen in the company of both petitioners along with Irfan, co-accused; that during investigation amount of Rs.15000, watch, two ropes, Gattoo, motorcycle etc. Were recovered from the possession of the petitioners; that last seen evidence corroborated by the aforementioned recoveries is sufficient evidence against the petitioners connecting them with the commission of this offence. It has been further submitted that trial of this case has been commenced by the learned trial Court, therefore, it is prayed that this petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
7. Admittedly petitioners were not nominated in the F.I.R. And nobody witnessed this occurrence.
Baqir Ali, father of Husnain Ali, deceased identified the dead body of his deceased son on 19-3-2010 but surprisingly he got his supplementary statement recorded on 21-3-2010 regarding last seen evidence against the petitioners for which no explanation was given by him. According to the statement of Baqir Ali, Nasir Ali, his brother and Tasawar Ali, his nephew, on 11-3-2011 Husnain Ali was taken by co-accused Wan from the shop of Baqir Ali and when Husnain Ali, deceased and Irfan were passing in front of the shop of Nasir Ali, brother of the complainant, witnesses also saw that the petitioners Furqan Ali and Sanowar Ali were also accompanying Husnain etc., on a motorcycle. Perusal of Rapat No.16 lodged at the instance of Baqir Ali, father of the deceased dated 15-3-2010 at Police Station KUP reveals that according to the version of Baqir Ali, on 11-3-2010 at about 8-30 p.m. His son Husnain Ali proceeded towards his house from Baqir Cloth House but he was missed near Wali Muhammad Mosque. In the said Rapat, Baqir Ali further contended that he kept on searching his son but in vain. Keeping in view Rapat No.16 lodged at the instance of Baqir Ali, father of Husnain Ali, deceased, last seen evidence produced against the petitioners by Baqir Ali, Nasir Ali, brother of the complainant and Tasawar Ali, nephew of the complainant require further inquiry. On 17-4-2010 police allegedly recovered two ropes, GATTOO, Cutter, Motorcycle bearing Registration No.4971/MNI. From the possession of petitioners and their co-accused Imran. On 27-4- 2010 amount of Rs.15,000 and one watch allegedly belonging to the Deceased was also recovered from the possession of the petitioners and Imran, co-accused. Prima facie all these recoveries were effected jointly from the possession of the petitioners and their co-accused Imran.
There is no direct evidence against the petitioners connecting them with the commission of this offence. Even otherwise these recoveries are only corroborative pieces of evidence. The petitioners were arrested on 13-4-2010 and they are behind the bars for more than one year. Commencement of trial is not a valid ground to refuse the grant of bail to the petitioners, if prima facie the case of accused/petitioner appears to be one of further inquiry. In this regard I am fortified in my view while relying upon the judgment of august Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as Abid Ali alias Ali v. The State (2011 SCM R 161).
8. For what has been discussed above, case of the petitioners comes within the ambit of further inquiry, therefore, petition in hand is accepted and petitioners are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
9. It is, however, clarified that observations, made in this petition are tentative in nature and shall, not prejudice the case of either party during trial..