' QALANDAR ALI KHAN, J.---This application under section 497, Cr.P.C. by Khalid, accused petitioner, is aimed at securing post arrest bail in case FIR No,626 dated 05.08.2015 registered in Police Station Kot Najib Ullah, Haripur, under Section 302/34, P.P.C. on the report of Mst. Akbar Jan, complainant/respondent No,1, who reported to the police in ANC Kot Najibullah in the presence of Mst. Shazia Bibi wife of Muhammad Idrees deceased at 01.15 hours on 05.08.2015 to the effect that while she was asleep in her room and her deceased son was asleep with his wife and children in a separate room, she heard sound of fire shots at 00.05 hours and when came out she found the lights off and her daughter-in-law, Mst. Shazia Bibi, raising alarm and told her that two persons entered the house and fired three shots at her husband with their firearms and then made good their escape by scaling the boundary wall of the house, and in the meantime they heard the sound of starting of motorcycle. According to the complainant, she and her daughter-in-law found the deceased in a pool of blood, but there was no male member in the house. However, electricity was restored when her daughter-in-law switched main board on; and, thereafter, her daughter . in-law informed her brothers after 15/20 minutes of the occurrence on telephone, and her brothers namely Muhammad Owais and Muhammad Ayaz reached from Pannian in a Suzuki and were removing her son in injured condition to the hospital but he succumbed to the injuries on his way to the hospital. The occurrence was reportedly witnessed by her daughter-in-law, and she charged unknown two persons for Qatl-i- Amd of her son by effectively firing at him. She, however, stated that they had no previous enmity with anyone.
2. After about one month and eighteen days of the occurrence, on 23.09.2015, Mst. Shazia Bibi recorded her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. before the I.O. wherein she charged the accused-petitioner along with another unknown person for the Qatl-i-Amd of her deceased husband. Her statement was also recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. on the same day, wherein, besides charging the accused/petitioner, nephew of her deceased husband, mentioned dispute over property between the deceased and the accused petitioner as motive for the offence. She further stated that she recognized the accused/petitioner when he turned around and also from his voice but the accused/petitioner pushed her and also threatened her with dire consequences when she started raising hue and cry.
3. The case took yet another turn when the complainant, Mst.Akbar Jan, recorded her supplementary statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. on 16.10.2015 wherein she completely exonerated the accused/ petitioner of the charge of Qatl-i-Amd of her deceased son and charged Mst. Shazia Bibi and her brothers namely Ayaz and Owais for the Qatl-i-Amd of her son.
According to the complainant, accused Ayaz and Owais owed rupees five/six lac,to deceased Muhammad Idrees, therefore, they committed his Qatl-i-Amd in order to escape the liability of repayment of outstanding amount. Her statement was also recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. on 21.11.2015 wherein she repeated her charge against accused Muhammad Owais, Ayaz and her daughter-in-law. It may be added here that all the said three accused charged by the complainant in her supplementary statement have been admitted to bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.-III, Haripur, vide order dated 08.12.2015, while bail has been declined to the accused-petitioner by the same Court vide order dated 28.11.2015. Hence, this petition for post arrest bail.
4. Today, the complainant, Mst. Akbar Jan and Mst. Shazia Bibi appeared in person, and the complainant, on a query by the Court, reiterated her stance about innocence of the accused-petitioner and again charged the three accused mentioned in her supplementary, statement for Qatl-i-Amd of her deceased son.
5. Arguments of learned counsel for the accused-petitioner, and Assistant Advocate General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant heard, and record perused.
6. In the FIR the complainant charged two unknown persons for three fire shots at her deceased son and mentioned the name of her' daughter-in-law, Mst. Shazia Bibi, as an eye-witness; and the said Mst. Shazia Bibi, who was present with her mother-in-law at the time of lodging report by her and also thumb impressed the report as a token of A its correctness, recorded statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. and thereafter under section 164, Cr.P.C. on 23.09.2015 wherein she charged the accused-petitioner along with another unknown person for the Qatl-i-Amd of her husband, with addition in her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. that she recognized the accused petitioner when he turned around and also from his voice; but within one month of charging of the accused-petitioner by Mst.
Shazia Bibi on 16.10.2015, the complainant refuted allegation of Mst. Shazia Bibi against the accused-petitioner, who is her grandson; and, instead, charged Mst. Shazia Bibi and her two brothers, namely, Ayaz and Owais for Qatl-i-Amd of her son and cited motive for the offence as the accused brothers of Mst. Shazia Bibi owed rupees five/six lacs to the deceased, therefore, they committed his Qatl-i-Amd in order to escape the liability of repayment of that huge amount. Mst. Shazia Bibi, on the other hand, had mentioned motive for the offence as dispute over property between the deceased and the C accused-petitioner. The police, therefore, implicated both the accused-petitioner and the three persons i,e, Mst. Shazia and her two brothers, Muhammad Ayaz and Muhammad Owais, in the case and arrested them; but all the three accused charged in the supplementary statement of the complainant have been released on bail.
7. If the said three accused were not charged in the FIR and were charged subsequently in the supplementary statement of the complainant and nothing incriminating was recovered from their possession to prima facie connect them with the commission of offence, so was the accused-petitioner, as he was also not charged in the FIR wherein two unknown persons were charged for the commission of the offence, and was charged in the subsequent statement of Mst. Shazia Bibi, who had thumb impressed the FIR along with the complainant as a token of its correctness. Likewise, if the three accused could be released on bail on the ground that there was nothing in support of their monetary dispute with the deceased, the I.O. had also not brought anything on record to prove dispute over property between the accused-petitioner and the deceased. Furthermore, if the three accused could be released on bail on the ground of belated charge against them, the accused-petitioner was also entitled to the same concession as charge against him had also been levelled belatedly by Mst. Shazia Bibi, who claimed to have recognized the accused-petitioner when he turned around after commission of the offence. In other words, both sets of accused in the case were sailing in the same boat; but grant of bail to one set of accused in the same case on the basis of one version and refusal of bail to another accused on the basis of another version is something beyond comprehension.
8. In any case, not only case against the accused-petitioner falls within the category of cases of further inquiry, but he is also no longer required to the police/prosecution for investigation, as complete challan has been submitted against him on 15.12.2015.
9. Consequently, on the acceptance of the application, the accused-petitioner is admitted to post bail, provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs,100,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Duty Judicial Magistrate, Haripur.