' This is an application for bail on behalf of Muhammad Saleem petitioner in a case under section 302/34, P. P. C. Registered at P. S. Badami Bagh, Lahore vide F. I. R. No, 267/83, dated 3rd August, 1983.
2. The prosecution case is that 11 months before the occurrence, Muhammad Ali, father of the pet itioner was killed and a case under section 302/34, P. P. C. Was registered against Muhammad Saeed complainant and his son Farrukh Saeed, Muhammad Saeed complainant was arrested and subsequently released on bail. It has been alleged that on the eventful day Muhammad Saeed complainant had gone to the house of Kamal Din, father-in-law of his son Farrukh Saeed to see his daughter-in law and granddaughter. At the fateful time i. e. 8 a.m. He was standing at the outer gate of the house of Kamal Din when his grand-daughter Mst. Rooma Farrukh came there and stood nearby. At that time, the petitioner armed with carbine alongwith Muhammad Munir co- accused reached there. On the lalkara raised by the co-accused, the petitioner opened fire on Muhammad Saeed which missed the target and hit on the right leg of Mst. Rooma Farrukh. The occurrence was also seen by Kupwar Butt and Shabbir Hussain P. Ws. Riaz P. W. Reached the spot just after the occurrence. Muhammad Saeed complainant and Riaz P. W. Removed Mst. Rooma Farrukh aged 3/4 years to hospital in injured condition where she succumbed to the injuries at 5- 30 p.m. The A. S. I. Came to the hospital and recorded the statement of Muhammad Saeed complainant at 9-00 p m. On the basis of which, the formal F. I. R. Was recorded at 9-30 p.m.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been involved in order to pressurize him to compromise the murder case of his father against Muhammad Saeed, complainant and his son and that the two eye-witnesses have not named the petitioner. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State had opposed this application on the ground that the name of the petitioner is given in the F. I. R. And that he is the main accused.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel with care. It is well-settled that for the purpose of bail, the Court has to see whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner has been guilty of relevant offence and for that not only the F. I. R. But also the statement of the P. Ws. Recorded by the police, the plea raised by the accused during the investigation and any other special circumstance may be taken into account. After having looked into the statement of the witnesses recorded by the police and the plea of false implication raised by the accused/petitioner during the investigation, I find that the eyewitnesses other than Muhammad Saeed complainant have not named the petitioner that no identification parade has been held to get the petitioner identified by these witnesses ; that there is nothing on the police file against the petitioner except the statement of Muhammad Saeed complainant ; that Muhammad Saeed is, admittedly, an inimical witness ; that Muhammad Riaz P. W. Who reached the spot just after the occurrence and met the complainant has stated:-- {{URDU TEXT}} ' That there is a delay of 13 hours in lodging F. I. R., that Kamal Din, the owner of the house as well as the father of the mother of the deceased who was in the house at the time of occurrence and had reached at the gate of the house just after the occurrence has not implicated the petitioner ; that although the petitioner remained in police custody for several days, the weapon of offence was not recovered from him and that the police in its last Zimni has stated as follows :- {{URDU TEXT}}
5. For what has been found above, I am of the opinion that the question of the guilt of the petitioner needs further enquiry. He is, therefore, allowed bail in the sum of Rs, 10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A. C./Duty Magistrate, Lahore.