Muhammad Arif, the only son of the complainant was murdered by some unknown accused on 06.07.2010 and his dead body was found from the area of Mohallah Hayat Nagar, with hands and feet tied by a string. Mst. Sughra Bibi complainant lodged the report of crime against some unknown accused, as is evident from the text of FIR No, 498/2010 of 06.07.2010 for offence U/S. 302, 34 P.P.C, registered at Police Station City Muzaffargarh.
2. The complainant made supplementary statement before the I.O. on 10.07.2010 and nominated Muhammad Iqbal (petitioner) and Junaid Waseem as the accused, to have committed the offence and mentioned the names of Baqir Hussain and Noor Muhammad witnesses as the source of her information. One of the witnesses namely Noor Muhammad happens to be a close relation to the deceased, as pointed out by learned counsel for the complainant. The evidence of last seen was introduced by the prosecution through the statement of above said Baqir Hussain and Noor Muhammad PWs on 10:07.2,010.
3. On the pointedness of Muhammad Iqbal (petitioner) and his co-accused Junaid Waseem certain articles belonging to the deceased were recovered by the I.O. during the course of investigation on different dates, some on 23.07.2010 and some on 27.07.2010.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has based his arguments mainly on the point that the evidence of last seen was fabricated by the prosecution after four days of the occurrence and that the alleged recovery of the case property is joint in nature which is inadmissible in evidence. He has relied upon Muhammad Bilal Vs. The State and another (2010 M LD 766), Abdul Salam Irfan Vs. The State (2000 P Cr. LJ 842), Abdul Saleem Vs. The State (1998 SCM R 1578), Hyder Jamal and another Vs. The State (1999 M LD 979) and Ghulam Akbar and another Vs, The State (2008.SCJ 907). .5. On the other hand, the bail plea of the petitioner has been strongly opposed by learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant on the ground that the last seen evidence read with evidence of recovery of crime articles and other case property connects the petitioner with the commission of offence; the petitioner has committed a gruesome offence so he is not entitled for the relief prayed for.
6. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record I find that Noor Muhammad a witness of last seen evidence is a close relative of Muhammad. Arif deceased who appeared before the police to record his statement after four days of the alleged occurrence without offering any explanation as to the intervening period of silence. The other PW of the same evidence, Baqir Hussain, also failed to explain the crucial period of taciturnity. The news of recovery of the dead body of the deceased must have spread like a jungle fire and the funeral of the deceased must have been largely attended to and it cannot be believed that Noor Muhammad PW could not learn about the murder and funeral of the deceased. He must have been the first man to inform the complainant about having seen the deceased in the company of the accused on the day of the occurrence and the tenor of the FIR therefore, must have been different from the one as is found now. The memoes prepared by the I.O. regarding recovery of the crime articles and that of the case property reveal that it is a case of joint recovery. I do not want to further dilate upon the quality and admissibility of the prosecution evidence at this stage lest it should cause prejudice to the case of any of the two sides.
7. Prima-facie there are reasonable grounds to believe that the case of the petitioner is one of further inquiry within the contemplation of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. and I am fortified in this regard while I seek guidance the judgments relied upon by the learned' counsel for the petitioner
8. Resultantly, the instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to furnishing fresh 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.