On 27-12-1988 at Police Station Mochi Wala, Jhang, a case under section 302/34 PPC was registered against Muhammad Nawaz and Ameer accused at the instance of Jhanda complainant maternal-uncle of Ghulam deceased.
2. It was alleged that on 26-12-1988 after Isha prayer time Jhanda complainant alongwith his son Akbar went to the house of his nephew Ghulam deceased to have consultation with him in connection with his lands. Ahmad PW was also sitting there. At about mid-night Muhammad Nawaz accused armed with a dagger and Muhammad Ameer armed with a hatchet came there, attacked and injured the deceased. Thereafter they ran away and the deceased succumbed to his injuries at the spot.
3. During the investigation on 27-12-1988, Jhanda complainant made a supplementary statement to the effect that Muhammad Nawaz accused was not accompanied by Ameer accused at the time of the occurrence but was accompanied by 1qbal accused and both of them had caused injuries to the deceased.
4. Nawaz accused, petitioner herein, was arrested on 3-2-1989. On 11-2-1989 he led to the recovery of a blood-stained dagger which was lying buried in a heap of rubbish near the shop of Iqbal accused. The recovery was witnessed by Ahmad and Akbar PWs.
5. Iqbal accused was released on bail on 3-5-1989. Nawaz petitioner has moved this petition for his bail.
6. I have heard the parties' counsel and have gone through the record.
7. Perusal of record reveals that Jhanda complainant in his supplementary statement had exonerated Ameer accused and in his place had implicated Iqbal accused. Akbar and Ahmad, PWs. Also stated in their statements before the investigating officer that the deceased had been done to death by Muhammad Nawaz petitioner and Iqbal accused. On 16-4-1989, however, Jhanda complainant and Akbar PW appeared before a Magistrate at Jhang and got their statements recorded under section 164 Cr. P.C. Wherein they stated that they had not witnessed the occurrence and that both Muhammad Nawaz petitioner and Iqbal accused were innocent. They further stated that no recovery of any weapon was ever effected from them. In view of this material on record the learned counsel for the petitioner maintained that the statements of Jhanda and Akbar PWs had rendered the prosecution case highly doubtful and thus the petitioner is entitled to the grant of bail. On the other hand learned counsel for the State argued that the statements of Jhanda and Akbar PWs which they had made before a Magistrate on 16-4-1989 did not make any difference because the statement of Ahmad PW who had witnessed the occurrence and had also witnessed the recovery was sufficient to connect the petitioner with the offence charged against him.
8. In the present case author of the FIR Jhanda PW and his son Akbar who were closely related to the deceased have disowned their previous statements before the police and have stated that they had not witnessed the occurrence and the recovery in question. In other words they have totally contradicted the prosecution case. It is true that Ahmad PW is still sticking to his statement but in view of the statements of the other two PWs it cannot be said with certainty, at least at the stage of bail, as to whether the petitioner had committed the offence charged against him. In my opinion the case requires further inquiry and thus the petitioner is entitled to the grant of bail. He is accordingly admitted to bail in the sum of Rs. 30,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C/Duty Magistrate, Jhang.
H.B.T./M-1651/L