Petitioner Zahoor Ahmad seeks his post arrest bail in case FIR No, 545/2008 dated 30.11.2008 for the offences u/S. 302-34 PPC, registered at PS Saddar Kahror Pakka, District Lodhran.
2. Brief facts of the case as per FIR are that the complainant along with his son Qasim Ali aged 22- years had taken some land on lease in Mouza Gul Pur Angrezi, Tehsil Kahror Pakka and were residing there temporarily. The house of Zahoor Ahmad (petitioner) was at a distance . of 2-acres from the house of the complainant who used to summon his son Qasim Ali at his house in order to maintain the accounts of tube-well. On the night falling between 29.11.2008 & 30.11.2008 Ahmad Yar and Atta Muhammad r/o Arif Wala had come to the house of the complainant as his guests when Zahoor Ahmad (petitioner) at about 09.00 p.m. took Qasim Ali to his house. At about 12.00 O,Clock at night, the complainant along with PWs reached at the spot on the hue and cry of Qasim Ali and saw Zahoor Ahmad, the petitioner armed with `CHURRI' along with three unknown persons running toward North of his house after coming out of his house. When the complainant and PWs reached in the residential room of Zahoor Ahmad, the petitioner, they saw that the dead bodies of his son Qasim Ali and Ghulam Jannat, the wife of Zahoor Ahmad were lying there. The motive behind this occurrence as alleged in the FIR is that Zahoor Ahmad, the petitioner entertained suspicion that Qasim Ali had developed illicit relations with his wife Ghulam Jannat.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the PWs are chance witnesses who according to the prosecution version hail from Arif Wala which is at a distance of 150-KM from the place of occurrence; that it was a night occurrence and no source of identification has been given in the FIR; that the prosecution witnesses did not see the petitioner inflicting injuries on the person of any deceased so there is no direct evidence against the petitioner for causing death of his son and Ghulam Jannat; that only allegation against the petitioner is that he was seen running armed with CHURRI, from the place of occurrence, which is only a last seen evidence. He further submitted that the complainant on 01.01.2009 made a supplementary statement before the police in which he in addition to, Zahoor Ahmad involved Rafique Ahmad, Manzoor Ahmad and Muhammad Lateef as accused persons and alleged that after the occurrence all the aforementioned four accused persons were coming back towards their DERA so the occurrence has been committed by them; that during investigation Muhammad Rafique and Manzoor Ahmad have been declared innocent.
He submitted that Muhammad Iqbal complainant on 05.05.2009, filed a Private Complaint regarding the same occurrence against the petitioner Zahoor Ahmad, Muhammad Rafique, Manzoor Ahmad and Muhammad Lateef and in said private complaint, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kahror Pakka has summoned the accused persons to face the trial and by filing the private complaint the prosecution story has been changed and that, the evidence of extra judicial confession has also been created against them. Due to the aforementioned submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.
Reliance has been placed on 2009 YLR 2300 titled as "Shah Nawaz Vs. The State".
4. On the other hand learned Law Officer has opposed the bail application on the ground that the petitioner is nominated in the FIR; that the petitioner remained absconder for about 45-days. He further submitted that blood stained "CHURRI" has been recovered from the petitioner on 18.01.2009 during the investigation. He therefore prayed for dismissal of this bail petition.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by both learned counsel and perused the record with their able assistance.
6. It has been noticed that no direct evidence of causing injuries on the person of deceased persons is available on the record against the petitioner. Admittedly that it is a night time occurrence and no source of identification has been given by the prosecution in the FIR. If motive part of the prosecution story is believed that the petitioner entertained suspicion that deceased had illicit relations with his wife then the complainant would not have allowed the deceased to go with the petitioner to his house in the dark hours of night. Both eye-witnesses are chance witnesses who did not give any explanation for their presence at the scene of occurrence. The perusal of supplementary statement dated 01.01.2009 and private complaint filed by the complainant shows that the complainant had been improving and changing the prosecution version with the passage of time. The recovery of CHURRI from the petitioner is only a corroborative piece of evidence and in the absence of eye-witnesses account it would not improve the case of the prosecution. The proceeding u/S. 87/88 of Cr.PC were not initiated against the petitioner so he could not be stated to be absconder. It has also been noted that the petitioner along with Muhammad Rafiq, Manzoor Ahmad and Muhammad Lateef have been summoned in the private complaint lodged by the complainant to face the trial and the proceeding in the challan case would remain stayed.
7. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
8. My observations in, the petition are tentative in nature and would not effect the merits of any party.
9. In the above terms, this bail applications disposed 'of. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.