1. A case under section 302/307/394/148/149, P.P.C. Stands registered against the petitioners and some others with Police Station Toba Tek Singh, vide F.I.R., dated 10-9-1988. According to the allegations contained in the F.I.R. Lodged by one Sayyee son of Saifal, one Mst. Shehnaz eloped with Mansab, therefore, both of them were sentenced to five years' R.I. Each. Said Mansab was also undergoing ten years' R.I. In a murder case. Mst. Shehnaz after serving the period of sentence, was released from jail two and a half years before the registration of the present case and started residing in the house of Anwar, brother of Said Mansab. Bahadar father of Mst. Shahnaz wanted her back but she was not returned. Therefore, Bahadar, father of Mst. Shahnaz got a case registered for the abduction of his daughter against the first informant, his brother Sarwar, Muhammad Amin, Mst. Saeeda and Mst. Khatoon, in which all the accused alongwith Mst. Shahnaz were challaned. On 10-9-1988 the date of hearing of the said case the first informant alongwith his co-accused mentioned above, after attending the Court, were coming back in a bus. On the way the bus was stopped on the asking of a person when a wagon came and parked in front of the said bus. From the said wagon, co-accused of the petitioners came out armed with different weapons. The co- accused of the petitioners caused injuries to Sarfraz who died at the spot. They also abducted Mst.
2. Shahnaz while leaving the place of incident.
3. 2.It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that none of the petitioners is named in the F.I.R. Nor any role is ascribed to them. Contends that later on the statement of some witnesses the petitioner:, were involved, but a5 far as Alam Sher is concerned, no identification parade qua him was held nor he was alleged to have been armed with any weapon. As far as petitioners Noor Muhammad and Allah Yar are concerned, they are alleged to have been armed with Sotas but no role is ascribed to them. The only allegation against them levelled by the witnesses during the investigation, is that they were present at the spot which would prove nothing, The contentions have been opposed by learned counsel for the State.
3. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. The petitioners are not named in the F.I.R. They were involved in the case on the statements o the witnesses recorded subsequent to the recording of the F.I.R. In those statements Alam Sher petitioner was not alleged to have been armed with any weapon nor any overt act is attributed to him. As.Far as petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, they are alleged to have been armed with Sotas, but no overt act is attributed to them either. The identification parade was held in respect of Noon Muhammad and Allahyar but much after the commission of the offence i.e. 2-10-1988.
4. Since the petitioners are- not attributed any overt act, therefore, I allow them bail provided they furnish security in the sum of Rs.30,000 each, with two sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate concerned.