' Zulfiqar All son of Muhammad Ismail, alongwith Mustafa son of Yaqoob and Nazir a son of Lal Din, was arrested for the murder of Saeed Ahmad son of Muhammad Shafi. The murder was alleged to have taken place on 11-4-1984 at Asar time inside the bath of the mosque in village Tokrian, Tehsil and District Gujranwala.
2. The prosecution case is that the three accused, Who were armed with lethal weapons, attacked Saeed Ahmad. Zulfiqar had carbine, Mustafa revolver and Nazir a shot gun. The fatal shot is attributed to Zulfiqar.
' Motive was that 16 years prior to this incident, there was dispute of land between Ismail, father of the petitioner, and others on one side and the complainant party on the other. This led to the murder of petitioner's father, his two uncles and grandmother. The accused in order to avenge the aforesaid murders had killed Saeed Ahmad.
' The bail application of Zulfiqar Ali was dismissed by an Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala by order, dated 16-1-1986. He has now moved this Court for bail.
' After notice had been issued in this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner requested for time to file additional grounds. The additional grounds were filed twice.
3. Initially the case was investigated by the local police. During that period, the investigation changed hands many times from one officer to another. Finally, it was entrusted to the Crimes Branch. Khadim Hussain Shah D.S.P. Is now incharge of the investigation.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner took number of the pleas in support of this petition. At first he argued that the case against the petitioner was false. There was long-standing enmity between the complainant and the petitioner because of the aforesaid murders in which the complainant was sentenced to death by the Sessions Judge, Gujranwala by his judgment, dated 10-11-1969. The death sentence was, however, commuted to life imprisonment by the High Court.
' The other ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner was Rehmat Ali, paternal-uncle of Saeed Ahmad was inimical to Saeed Ahmad and his brothers, who were tried for the murder of Hamidan Bibi, daughter of Rehmat Ali, but were acquitted. Hence there was every possibility that Saeed Ahmad was killed either by his uncle or at his instance.
' It was next contended that as Saeed Ahmad suspected attack from the side of Rehmat Ali, he was always armed. Even on the day of occurrence, he was carrying a carbine which went off accidently and resulted in his death.
' Last of all, learned counsel argued that the petitioner was arrested I on 15-5-1984 and since then he is behind the bars.
5. The A . A . -G . Opposed the grant of bail because of the part I assigned to the petitioner.
' On previous dates, complainant's counsel used to appear. He I too vehemently opposed the bail, but today he did not turn up.
6. On 14-5-1986, Khadim Hussain Shah D.S.P., Crimes Branch appeared before me. He submitted that the case was entrusted to him on 29-4-1986. He needed some time to complete the investigation. Th case was adjourned to 2-6-1986 when again the D.S.P. Requested fo more time.
The case was accordingly adjourned to 14-6-1986. Today, again, the D.S.P. Submitted that still he has not been hole to complete the investigation, but nothing incriminating has been found against the petitioner in the investigation so far conducted by him. He has yet to submit his final report to the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab.
7. The prosecution had enough time to finalize the investigation. It is not possible for me to go, on giving adjournments. I have, therefore, decided to dispose of this petition on merits.
' It is not possible for the prosecution to deny certain facts. On of those is that .The petitioner is behind the bars since May, 1984. As submitted by the D.S.P., the investigation is still going on, but it is not known when it is likely to be finalised. The trial is not in sight.
' The petitioner is in jail for more than two years. This inordinate delay is sufficient to allow bail to the petitioner. Not only on this ground, but also on other contentions raised by the learned counsel since the case against the petitioner is one which calls for furthe inquiry, the petitioner is entitled to bail.
I, therefore, admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Fifty thousand) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Gujranwala.