' Petitioner seeks cancellation of bail granted to Muhammad Amir respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhakkar, in case F.I.R. No, 213 of Police Station Saddar District Bhakkar under section 302, P.P.C., for the murder of his father. The occurrence of murder of Gul Muhammad had taken place during the night between 30th June and 1st July, 1988. The only person who had witnessed the occurrence was Mst. Zeenat aged 7/8 years a grand-daughter of the deceased. It was she who had informed the complainant, whereupon he lodged the F.I.R. Although she gave description of the accused but she did not name anyone. Her supplementary statement was recorded on 2-7- 1988, wherein she stated that the assailant resembled Shafi Mahajar. She, however, made it clear that the assailant was not Shafi Mahajar. Therein also she did not make any inference or doubt against the respondent.
2. Mst. Bakhtan daughter of the deceased and her husband Nur Muhammad appeared before the police on 18-7-1988 and made statement that Muhammad Ameer (respondent) had made confession before them on 17-7-1988 of having committed the murder. The respondent thereafter was arrested in the case on 22-7-1988. On the same day, while being in police custody, Mst. Zeenat identified him to be the assailant. He allegedly led to the recovery of Chhuri on 19-7-1988.
' Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent being relative of the complainant party, they would not have invovled him falsely in the case and that failure of Mst. Zeenat not to have named him in the F.I.R. Could be for the reason that she was a child and forgot his name and no sooner she saw him she pointed out that he was the assailant.
' With regard to the witnesses pertaining to the extra-judicial confession, learned counsel submitted that if they are related to the complainant they were also related to the respondent as well. In that, he stated that Nur Muhammad P.W. Is first cousin of wife of the respondent.
' Learned counsel for the State has supported the cancellation of bail. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the cancellation of bail.
3. The respondent admittedly is related to the petitioner and it is nobody's case that relations amongst them were strained and they were not on visiting terms with each other. That being the position, Mst. Zeenat must have been A getting opportunity of seeing the respondent. If that was so, she could not have missed to identify him at the time of occurrence. She could, of course, have forgotten the name but she could have pointed out by other descriptions of the accused by stating his relationship with her.
'The two witnesses of extra-judicial confession are, of course, related by marriage, to the respondent but their first relation is with the deceased and the complainant. The Chhuri said to have been recovered from the respondent was not found to be stained with blood.
4. In the circumstances I find no merit in this petition. The order of bail c passed by the Additional Sessions Judge does not call for any interference. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.