JUDGMENTRASHID AZIZ KHAN, J.-A case under section 17 of Offences against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with sections 302/307/148/149 PPC was registered with Police Station Saddar Chiniot, District Jhang, on 12.12.1987. The allegations, as contained in the FIR, are that the first informant along with his brother Barkat Ali was sleeping in his Haveli when he heard some noise and saw nine persons armed, present in the Haveli. One of the accused Jani Shah took 7 M.M.
Rifle of the first informant, and another accused picked up. 12 bore gun belonging to the first informant's companion. The accused persons threatened them of dire consequences in case they raised noise, and took away five buffalos from the Haveli. The first informant and his brother Rehmat Ali raised alarm, whereupon Muhammad, Co-accused of the petitioner fired hitting Rehmat Ali. It was followed by Bhai Khan whose shot also hit Rehmat Ali. When the first informant tried to rescue his cattle, he and his companions were given Lathi blows by the co-accused of the petitioner. Rehmat Ali in consequences of the injuries died.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not named in the FIR.
Submits that during investigation the petitioner was found involved but there is no evidence that he was present at the spot. The only evidence available against the petitioner is that of two Wajtakkar witnesses. The petition has been opposed by learned counsel for the State.
3. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. The petitioner is not named in the FIR.
The only evidence collected by the investigating agency against the petitioner is of two Wajtakkar witnesses who saw him along with some cattle head going on a tractor-trolley at a distance of 10/12 miles from the place of occurrence. There is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that he was present at the scene of occurrence inside the Haveli or outside the haveli. The evidence against him is that he was seen along with other co-accused after the commission of the offence at a considerable distance. This in itself would make the case of the petitioner of further inquiry which would entitle him to the concession of bail, therefore, the petitioner is allowed bail provided he furnishes security in the sum ofRs.30,000/- viih two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Assistant Conunissioner/Duty Magistrate concerned.