' The petitioners seek post arrest bail in case FIR No. 183/14 dated 31.12.2014, offence under Sections 302/201/34, PPC, registered with Police Station Rangpur, District Muzaffargarh.
2. The allegation against the petitioners is that they, in furtherance of their common intention, committed murder of the sister of complainant.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused,
4. The petitioners are named in the FIR with specific role of murder of women folk (sister of the complainant). The deceased was the second wife of the Petitioner No. 1, who was already married and whose children from the first wife were unhappy with the second marriage of their father with Mst. Zareena Mai, deceased. Further, when the dead body was recovered, it could not be identified and the accused persons, after committing the murder, thrown the same in the river. The accused persons confessed their guilt before the police as well as three prosecution witnesses that they had murdered the deceased. The petitioners also made confessional statements that ,here they murdered Mst. Zareena, where they hid the dead body and then thrown the same in the river. This strong, ample and incriminating material is available on the police record to connect the petitioners-accused with the commission of alleged offence in the shape of blood stained sacks vide recovery memo. Dated 23.01.2015, mobile phone of Mst. Zareena, deceased and blood stained clothes of the deceased which were got recovered by Aun Abbas, Petitioner No.2. The offences, with which, the petitioners are charged, fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of, Cr.P.C. And entail capital punishment. No reason exists for the complainant to falsely implicate the petitioners with the commission of crime. Challa' n has been submitted in the learned trial Court, where the charge has been framed and the case is hampering adjudication at the stage of prosecution evidence.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is not inclined to allow the petition in hand. Resultant, the instant petition is dismissed. It is pertinent to mention here that the observations made supra did not effect the case of either party.