' KHALID MEHMOOD, J.---Petitioner Hamayun son of Ajoon has been arrested by the local police of Police Station Banna Allai in case F.I.R. No, 221 dated 20-10-2011 for alleged commission of offence under section 302, P.P.C. He applied for post-arrest bail before the courts below but the same was declined. Hence, this bail petition.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 6-10-2011 at 21.35 hours complainant Khush Dil reported the matter regarding murder of his deceased son namely Junaid. It was reported his son went along accused petitioner to Thakot in order to seek a job. Thereafter somebody informed him that his son has been thrown in river Indus, due to which he rushed to the place of occurrence, where he was told that dead body of his son was seen drifting in the river Indus and accused petitioner was seen running from the spot.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. It was argued that there is no direct evidence of throwing the deceased into the river by the accused petitioner and nothing has been brought on record to connect the accused petitioner with the crime. It was further argued that the alleged recovery of, mobile and identity card of deceased shown to have been recovered from accused by Iqbal Shah HC were neither entered in the daily diary nor were produced before police. It was argued that it is an unseen occurrence and there is no eye-witness of crime and case of accused petitioner falls within the ambit of further inquiry.
4. On the other hand learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for complainant opposed the bail petition and contended that petitioner is directly charged in the F.I.R. And has committed heinous crime, which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. Since there is no direct evidence of throwing the deceased into the river by the accused petitioner and nothing has been brought on record to reasonably connect the accused petitioner with the crime. The eyewitnesses mentioned in the F.I.R. Allegedly seen the accused petitioner fleeing from the spot. The alleged recovery of mobile and identity card of deceased shown to have been recovered from accused by Iqbal Shah. HC were neither entered in the daily diary nor were produced before police. Complainant in his report not mentioned his mobile/cell number or his deceased son's cell number. In the first report the name of eye- witnesses namely Behram and Zardad were not mentioned. Site plan also contradicts the version of the prosecution. Petitioner per version of prosecution was arrested on the very day of occurrence, but according to record petitioner was shown arrested on the following day of occurrence. Whether the deceased himself slipped into the river by chance or he was pushed by the accused petitioner is a question which can be determined after recording of evidence at the trial.
7. At present there is no direct or circumstantial evidence, which could reasonably connect the accused petitioner with the commission of crime. Petitioner is behind the bars since the date of his arrest. In this view of the matter keeping petitioner behind the bars for indefinite period waiting conclusion of trial would serve no useful purpose. Prima facie all these points make the case that of further inquiry and pending such inquiry petitioner deserves to be released on bail.
8. Consequently, this bail petition is allowed and it is directed that petitioner be released on bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs,5,000,000 (Rs,Five lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, who shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means. The observations given_ by this Court are tentative in nature, trial Court should not be influenced by the same.