Manzoor Ahmad petitioner alongwith one other is accused of offence under section 302/34, P. P. C.
1t is alleged that the petitioner while empty-handed held Ahmad Bakhsh deceased when his co- accused, Muhammad Kamil, caused him numerous chhuree blows resulting in his death. At the spot. Muhammad Nazir complainant was attracted on the hue and cry raised by the deceased and after he woke up from the sleep on the roof top of his house adjacent to the house of deceased he saw petitioner holding the deceased in the light of electric bulb. The complain--ant after getting down rushed to the house of deceased where with the help of other P. Ws.
Complainant succeeded in capturing Muhammad Kamil co-accused of the petitioner but the petitioner escaped.
2. It has been argued that petitioner was empty-handed, that he is not alleged to have caused any injury to the deceased, that complainant could not identify the petitioner from the roof top of his own house even in the light of the electric bulb as petitioner was not previously known to him, that the other two P. Ws. Reached the spot after the petitioner had succeeded in running away from the spot that no identification parade was held in this case and petitioner was arrested on 25th April, 1983 on suspicion only on the co-accused giving his name due to enmity, and that petitioner bad no motive of his own as against his co-accused who had caused murder of the deceased. The release of petitioner on bail has been opposed by the learned counsel for the State who has submitted that Imam Din and Muhammad Raman also saw the petitioner running away from the spot besides the complainant himself. It has further been sub--mitted that after the completion of investigation the papers have been submitted to the Deputy Martial Law Administrator for order as to whether the case shall be tried by the Military Court or not.
3. Petitioner allegedly facilitated the murder of Ahmad Bakhsh by holding him. Muhammad Kamil co-accused alongwith others had a motive against the deceased. Petitioner was not previously known to the complainant and others and even if they could observe the description of the petitioner no identification parade having been held petitioner appears A to have been named in the F. I. R. On the information of the co-accused. In the circumstances the case against the petitioner is of further inquiry covered by section 497 (2), Cr. P. C. No order has so far been passed for trial of the petitioner by a Military Court. Therefore, I order release of the petitioner on bail subject to his furnishing security in the sum of Rs.25,000 (Rupees twenty-five thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner/ Duty Magistrate, Multan.