' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---The allegation against the petitioner, Mudassar Ali is that he was a remiss and he often tortured his wife Mst. Sadaf without any reason; he was persuaded by his father-in-law (complainant) to mend himself and abstain from maltreating his wife but he would not listen to it; the complainant received a telephone call from his daughter on 29.04.2014 and learnt that her husband had turned ill-intentioned against her and she might be disposed of by him any moment; the accused and his family members did violence to Mst.Sadaf and strangulated her to death on 29.04.2014. The complainant was informed later in the day, at about 11.45 ,a.m. By the elder brother of Mudassar Ali that Mst. Sadaf had committed suicide.
2. The complainant rendered a supplementary statement, the same day, whereby he contended that he felt deeply grieved due to sudden death of his daughter, so he could not mention some relevant facts in the FIR; he said that on receipt of telephone call from his daughter, he contacted his son Hamid Hassan on telephone and asked him to rush to the house of his sister, whereon he joined by Sajid Ali went there and saw it themselves that his sister was being strangulated by her husband Mudassar Ali (petitioner), who happened to be his real paternal nephew. Both the witnesses were recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. On 29.04.2014 and they supported the supplementary statement of the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case merely as a guess-work of the complainant and he was innocent; the complainant did not mention the names of the witnesses, Hamid Hassan and Sajid Ali in the FIR rather he introduced them in this case as such through a supplementary statement, recorded much after the registration of the. FIR; the complainant introduced another fact in this case by moving a petition under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. Before the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace Lahore whereby he contended that the occurrence of murder of his daughter had been witnessed by him along with Sajid Ali, Muhammad Abbas and Muhammad Omer; he showed no faith in his real son Hamid Hassan as he dropped his name from the list of eyewitnesses when he moved the said petition; the petitioner's case calls for further probe into his guilt therefore he may be granted the relief prayed for.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab assisted\ by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this petition on the ground that the occurrence was witnessed by Hamid Hassan and Sajid Ali who still supported the prosecution case and. Their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. Were available on the record; the complainant had. Moved a petition, under section 22-A, 22-B, Cr.P.C. With a changed version but he withdrew it on 16.05.2014 which was no more a part of the record; the dead ,body of the deceased lady was recovered from the house of the petitioner which constitutes a strong incriminating circumstance against him. Lastly submits that the petitioner's case entails capital punishment, therefore, he may not be set at liberty.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is found that the complainant categorically alleged in the FIR that his daughter Mst.Sadaf had repeatedly informed him on telephone 'about the untoward and unmanly behaviour of her husband, the accused- petitioner, but he produced no evidence in support of this factual allegation. He did not cite anyone as an eyewitness in the FIR and he only pointed to a telephone call of real elder brother of the petitioner, who allegedly informed him that his daughter had committed suicide. He however.
Introduced the name of his son Hamid Hassan and that of Sajid Ali in his supplementary statement with the contention that they both, on his asking, 'had gone to the house of his daughter where they saw Mudassar Ali accused throttling his wife. Both the eyewitnesses were recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. On 29.04.2014 in support of the said fact.
6. Nothing can be said with certainty at this stage as to what idea struck to the complainant's mind when he moved a petition under section 22-A, 22-B, Cr.P.C. Before the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace Lahore on 12.05.2014 whereby he changed the tenor of the incident by asserting that on receipt of telephone 'call from his ill-fated daughter, he along with Sajid Ali, Muhammad Abbas and Muhammad Omer rushed to her house where they all saw Mudassar Ali accused strangulating and murdering his wife. Interestingly, he did not mention the name of his real son Hamid Hassan as an eyewitness of the occurrence in this petition. He reconsidered his stance and withdrew the said petition on 16.05.2014 without ever perceiving as to the scale of damage having been done to the prosecution case by it. A copy each of the said petition and the order of the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace regarding its dismissal as withdrawn make a part of this petition.
7. The complainant who is present in the court has been repeatedly asked as to why he dropped the name of his son from the list of the witnesses and showed himself as an eyewitness of the occurrence and why did he include some other names as eyewitnesses in his petition under section 22-A, 22-B, Cr.P.C., in answer to which, he talked irrelevantly and looked absolutely puzzled.
Learned Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab has read out statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Of Sajid Ali, an alleged eyewitness, which entails the fact that the complainant had reached the spot when he was still there and he disclosed the details of the occurrence to him forthwith. If so, why didn't he (complainant) narrate this crucial detail in the FIR which he got lodged at about 3.15 p.m., the same day and why did he omit to mention in his written application, that the occurrence of murder of his daughter had been witnessed by his son Hamid Hassan and Sajid Ali. To make afore- referred supplementary statement after registration of the FIR appears to be a well thought and deliberated move on the part of the complainant to fill-in the gaps of the case. His improved version as to witnessing the incident by himself along with the said companions creates a situation, still worse for the prosecution case. The petitioner was arrested by the police on 19.05.2014 and he has been in jail since A then. He is no more required for the purpose of any recovery etc. The somersaults of the complainant in terms, discussed hereinabove render the petitioner's case one of further inquiry within the scope of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Therefore, this application is allowed and he is admitted to post arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,5,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.