' Through this petition under Section 497, Cr.P.C., Muhammad Riaz petitioner has sought post arrest bail in case FIR No, 130 dated 03.03.2013, registered under Section 302, PPC at Police Station Green Town, Lahore on the application of Mst. Nasreen Bano complainant.
2. The facts of prosecution case are that Mst. Nasreen Bano complainant is resident of House No, 246 Block 4-C-II, Green Town, Lahore and her house is consisting of double storey wherein her husband Abdul Razzaq and two sons, Muhammad Riaz (petitioner) along with his wife Mst. Farhat (deceased), Muhammad Fayyaz (deceased) younger son of the complainant along with his wife Mst. Asma Bibi (deceased) were residing. Muhammad Riaz (petitioner) was issueless whereas Muhammad Fayyaz (deceased) was having a daughter namely Kashaf (deceased) aged 4 months. Muhammad Riaz (petitioner) was employed in Soharwardi Foundation whereas younger son of the complainant was employed in Nestle company. At night Mst. Farhat (deceased) daughter in law of the complainant and Muhammad Riaz (petitioner) were sleeping on the upper portion of the house whereas her younger son Muhammad Fayyaz (deceased), her wife Mst. Asma (deceased) and minor daughter Kashaf (deceased) were sleeping on the lower portion of the house. The complainant and her husband Abdul Razzaq were sleeping in the adjacent room.
Muhammad Riaz (petitioner) went to Airport at 3/4 00 a.m. In the morning in order to receive his Peer Sahib who was coming back after performing Umrah. In the morning at about 6.30 a.m. The complainant woke up and went towards the room of Muhammad Fayyaz her son, where she saw that throats of her son and daughter in law Mst. Asma were chopped with sharp edged weapon and both of them were found dead while smearing with blood and minor daughter Kashaf was also found dead along with them. The complainant immediately got up her husband Abdul Razzaq and informed him about the incident. Thereafter, the complainant went to the room of her son Muhammad Riaz (petitioner) where she saw that throat of her daughter in law was also chopped with sharp edged weapon and her dead body was lying on the bed while smearing with blood. The complainant started to raise hue and cry. Upon which mohallandars gathered there. On checking it came to know that gold ornaments were also missing from her house. On receiving information, Muhammad Javed brother of the complainant and Khulid Mahmood younger brother of the husband of the complainant came to their house and saw the dead bodies.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record available with their able assistance, I have observed as follows:-
(i) Admittedly it was an unseen occurrence and nobody had seen the petitioner while committing the murders of their four deceased who were closely related to him.
(ii) The petitioner was also not nominated in the FIR as an accused who was allegedly involved by the complainant through supplementary statement but without ascribing any specific or active role whatsoever and even there is no circumstantial evidence available on the record to prima facie connect the petitioner with the commission of the alleged crime.
(iii) The complainant of this case is mother of the petitioner as well who during the evidence has not implicated the petitioner as an accused in this case. She while appearing before this Court also stated that the petitioner was not present at the time of occurrence rather he had gone to Airport to receive his Peer Sahib, who was coming back after performance of Umrah. The complainant has also sworn an affidavit to this effect and raised no objection if the petitioner is admitted to bail as the petitioner has been involved in this case wrongly by the police in order to get rid-off four murders' case.
(iv) There is yet another important aspect of the case that the recovery of alleged crime weapon i,e, churri is shown to have been effected from the petitioner on 15.3.2013, but as per report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency, the same was received in the office on 13,3.2013, which leads to draw an inference that the said recovery has been planted upon the petitioner to strengthen the prosecution case.
4. For what has been discussed above, the petitioner has succeeded in making out the case of further inquiry falling within the purview of sub-section (2) of Section 492, Cr.P.C. And mere heinousness of the offence is not sufficient to decline such discretion, as benefit of doubt, if arises at any stage of the case, has to go to the accused. Hence, this bail application is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.