Through the instant petition, the petitioner Rizwan Saddique seeks his post-arrest bail in a case arising out of FIR No, 259, dated 13.07.2010, registered with Police Station Saddar, District Rahim Yar Khan, for the offences under Sections 302, 109, 34, P.P.C.
2. The prosecution story, as per FIR, in brief, is that some unknown person committed the murder of Raheel Akhtar, nephew of the complainant. Initially, the present petitioner was the witness of the said occurrence but subsequently brother of the deceased namely Sajeel got the matter re- investigated, during which, the present petitioner was found involved with the allegation that he along with his co-accused committed murder of Raheel Akhtar on 13.07.2010 at 10:35 a.m. and the dead body was lying in the bedroom.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. As stated above, the petitioner was initially a witness of the occurrence but later-on, during the course of re-investigation, after almost 2 months of the occurrence, the petitioner was implicated through statement made by brother of the deceased namely Sajeel, which discloses extra judicial confession being made by the petitioner before Khalid Saeed (complainant) and Zulfiqar Ali, PW.
Said, Khalid Saeed in his statement recorded u/S. 161, Cr.P.C. never stated about the alleged extra- judicial confession being made before him by the present petitioner. Likewise, Zulfiqar Ali, the other witness of extra judicial confession, also sworn an affidavit, whereby he resiled from his earlier statement made u/S. 161, Cr.P.C. Prima facie, the alleged extra judicial confession is not supported by any strong evidence. Even otherwise, the witnesses are related to the deceased, who, it appears, never tried to apprehend the unarmed petitioner nor made any independent statement before the police. From the record, it appears that no independent inquiry was made by the police to dig-out the truth. Tentatively, it is observed that this is a case of circumstantial evidence, which would be seen by the learned trial Court after recording of independent evidence on each circumstance having chain link. All these facts, bring the case of the present petitioner within the ambit of further inquiry.
5. Despite the petitioner being remained on physical remand, nothing was recovered from his person to connect him with the unseen occurrence. Regarding innocence of the present petitioner, Shamshad etc. have got recorded their statements u/S. 161, Cr.PC. and also sworn their affidavits, which are on record. Besides, no motive is attributed to the petitioner, who is behind the bars since 02.12.2010 and is no more required for any purpose. His, further detention in Jail would be of no avail to the prosecution, when the trial is also not in sight.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C, therefore, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post- arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judi.) of this Court.