' KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J.--Through this single Judgment I propose to decide Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Petition No,312 of 2011 filed by petitioner, namely Bashir son of Azmat Khan and Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Petition No,301 of 2011 filed by petitioner, namely, Sadat Khan son of Qhulam Muhammad being arising out of F.I.R. No,376 dated 23-6-2011 under Section 302/34; P.F.C.
Registered at Police Station City District Petitioners having failed to secure their release on bail from the lower Courts, have approached this Court for seeking the same relief.
2. Brier facts of the instant case are that complainant along with his brother deceased was present in the shop of spare parts and at about 10-00 a.m. Co-accused Javed Iqbal along with petitioner Bashir came to- the shop of complainant and asked Zahooruddin deceased to come along with an amount of Rs,2,00,000 to the shop of Bashir as other accused were present there to decide the matter. At this, the deceased after taking the money, went along with accused but at about 2-45 hours co-accused Javed Iqbal informed the complainant about murder of the deceased in the shop of petitioner Bashir and on the basis of which the ibid case F.I.R. Was chalked out.
3. Before advancing arguments learned counsel for complainant/ respondent raised legal point that one of the accused namely Maulvi Faizullah was released by other member of this Bench, hence, the present petitions should be heard by the said Member of the Bench or permission may be sought from the honourable Chief Justice for decision by the other Member of the Bench. In this regard he relied upon case of Zubair v. State reported in 2002 SCM R 177. Learned counsel for the petitioners did not object the proposition.
4. In this regard the matter was put up before the honourable Chief Justice. The permission was allowed to be decided by another Single Bench. It is pertinent to note that Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No,312 of 2011 was entrusted to this Court on 12-8-2011 for decision along with the Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No,301 of 2011 which was already pending before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the accused/petitioners argued that there is no eye-witness of the occurrence and it -is unseen occurrence. They further submitted that no incriminating article or weapon of offence has been recovered from the accused/petitioners. They contended that absence of motive and confession of other co-accused, the accused/petitioners cannot be connected with the commission of offence. They urged that other two co-accused have been released on bail, one co-accused Maulvi Faizullah by this Court and the other co-accused Javed Iqbal by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, P.I. Khan. They also referred to the site plan which has been prepared without pointation of any eye-witness which shows dishonest investigation on the part of prosecution.
6. Learned counsel for complainant/ respondent argued that the prosecution case is based on last seen of evidence and also the recovery of dead body from the shop of one of accused Bashir Khan which is sufficient to connect the accused/petitioners with commission of offence.
7. I have heard arguments of counsel of the parties. My finding is as under.
8. It is admitted fact that in the present case there is no eye-witness of the occurrence. No incriminating article or weapon of, offence has been recovered from the accused. The last seen witness Javed Iqbal mentioned in the F.I.R. By the complainant/respondent later on has been arrayed as accused in the present case. As per postmortem report only one injury sustained to the accused has been mentioned. No motive has been alleged against the accused/petitioners: The site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer without mentioning of witness who pointed out various points of accused at the place of occurrence. In the present case two co-accused have been enlarged on bail, the case of the present accused/petitioners at par of that co-accused who have been released on bail.
9. Keeping in view principle of consistency and other grounds mentioned above which make out a case of further inquiry. I, therefore, accepted both the bail petitions filed by the accused/petitioners and they are allowed to be released on bail provided they furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (two lass) with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Duty Magistrate, D.I. Khan. The sureties must be local, reliable and men of sufficient means.