1. ' SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, J.--F.I.R. No.165 of 2010 was recorded at Police Station Kot Diji on 17-9-2010.
2. The complainant stated that deceased Ghulam Qadir was his nephew and used to reside separately. 3/4 months back allegation of illicit relations were levelled upon Ghulam Qadir and the accused persons were the ones who levelled such allegations. On 12-9-2010 the complainant, his uncle and a cousin went to meet Ghulam Qadir and while they were sitting and talking the present applicants along with two of their other caste fellows came there and asked Ghulam Qadir to accompany them to go to Khairpur. Ghulam Qadir went with them and did not return. On 16-9-2010 the complainant along with his uncle and a cousin went for searching Ghulam Qadir and under a Sheesham tree near a sugarcane crop they saw swollen body of Ghulam Qadir with a cut mark on his neck.
3. ' Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that there was five days delay in lodging of the F.I.R.
4. Learned counsel next submitted that although it is stated by the complainant that Ghulam Qadir went missing on 12-9-2010 but for A period of five days neither did the complainant approach the police for recording his statement nor did he approach any local notable. Learned counsel submitted that the previous enmity is admitted and this F.I.R. Has been actuated out of the previous enmity. He submitted that it is an unseen incident and no weapon whatsoever has been recovered so far. Lastly learned counsel submitted that entire story narrated by the complainant is highly unnatural. Learned counsel relied upon Miandad and another v. The State (2010 M LD 956), Shahnawaz v. The State (2009 YLR 2300), Muhammad Ilyas v. The State (2009 YLR 2311), Muhammad Shabbir v. The State (2010 YLR 1379) and Muhammad Sadiq and another v. The State (1998 SCM R 526).
5. ' Mr. Illahi Bux Jamali learned counsel for the complainant submitted that accused persons have been nominated in the F.I.R. And they very strongly implicated in the crime on the basis of last seen evidence. Regarding delay in lodging of the F.I.R. Learned counsel submitted that there has not been any delay after the dead body was discovered.
6. ' Mr.Shyam Lal learned A.P.-G. Submitted that as far as cause of death is concerned, postmortem report is clear that death occurred in unnatural circumstances. He further submitted that postmortem report states that death occurred 70 to 90 hours before the date of postmortems and thus the death is brought proximate in time when it is alleged in the F.I.R. That deceased went with the present applicants.
7. ' I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and have also gone through the record.
8. ' As far as question of delay in lodging of the F.I.R. Is concerned, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that alleged abduction took place on 12-6-2010 and F.I.R. Was lodged on 17-6-2010. It has been held in a number of cases that in a case of abduction, whether a female or a male, the familie's first priority is to try to locate the abductee and therefore, stricto sensu, the delay in lodging of such F.I.R. Is rarely material, at least at the bail stage. Similarly contention of the learned counsel that the complainant did not approach the police or local notables for the same reason is of not much significance.
9. ' Main emphasis of the learned counsel was that though the applicants have been arrested for a long time no recovery from them has so far taken place. He relied upon Mobeen's case (supra). It was a case where it was alleged that a fire arm .Was used and when the complainant etc. On hearing fire report rushed to the spot, they found the applicants escaping and Soomar lying on ground having fire arm injuries and was died. It was contended that the applicant was shown to be armed with hatchet and no hatchet injury was shown on the deceased. In any case hatchet had not been recovered. It was a case where the State counsel conceded the bail and therefore, the case is of no relevance. In Shahnawaz's case (supra) it was alleged in the F.I.R. That after deceased Mukhtar was taken away, a report of fire shot was heard and Mukhtar was found wriggling on the ground and Muhammad Raheem was seen being a rifle in his hand. It was contended that allegation against the applicant Shahnawaz was that he called deceased Mukhtar. The High Court observed that no role had been attributed to Shahnawaz and no recovery had taken place from him. In Muhammad Ilyas' case (supra) dead body was found in a garden. Nothing was recovered - from possession of the applicant or at his pointation and bail was allowed. In Muhammad Bashir's, case (supra) Investigation Officer had declared the accused innocent and has prepared the discharge report. Magistrate did not agree with it. The High Court observed that no recovery had taken -place and no useful purpose could be served by keeping the applicant behind bars. Lastly Muhammad Sadiq's case (supra) was relied upon. It related to murder of one Aurangzeb, who was allegedly murdered in October, 1993 and F.I.R. Was registered in April, 1994. The complainant stated that he had seen an incised wounds on a person of Aurangzeb but thought the same to have been caused by some wild animal and thereafter, the dead body was buried. Subsequently the dead body was exhumed and penetrating wounds over chest and abdominal cavity were found. The injuries were opined to have been caused by sharp-edged weapons. The only basis for involving the applicant was an extra-judicial confession and honourable Supreme Court observed that it had no evidentiary value and there did not exist any material to connect the applicant with the alleged offence.
10. ' In the present case Only piece of evidence available against the applicants is that it is alleged in the F.I.R. That on 12-6-2010 applicants along with two other persons came and asked Ghulam Qadir to go with them. From that point onward the entire incident is an unseen incident and it is not disputed that no recovery has been effected. Now this is to be seen in the context of the background and the background is that the deceased Ghulam Qadir was alleged to have had illicit relationship with wife of one of the person of accused person's community. In the presence of such allegations and bad blood two things seems un natural. Firstly the complainant side would come and asked Ghulam Qadir to go with them as if they had been best of friends. Secondly they would do so when the three witnesses were present. Therefore the incident seems a bit un natural. This creates doubt. Moreover since no crime weapon has been recovered, it is a case of further enquiry.
11. ' Result of the above discussion is that this bail application is allowed and the applicants are ordered to be admitted to bail upon their executing P.R. Bonds for a sum of Rs.300,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.