' Petitioners are seeking bail in the case registered, vide F.I.R. No,158 of 28-5-1989 at Police Station Jaranwala, initially under section 364 to which subsequently section 302/34, P.P.C. Was added at the instance of Saee Muhammad son of Fazal Muhammad deceased (a clerk of an Advocate practicing at Faisalabad) alleging that on 18-5-1989 the deceased went from Faisalabad to the village in connection with sale of a piece of land having been leased out to co-accused Muhammad Sadiq Bhatti, but did not turn up for a day, whereupon complainant's brother Muhammad Khushal along with another person on 20-5-1989, went after him and on the way noticed the petitioners in the company of six others, forcibly lifting away a person, and on reaching the village found the deceased missing; resultantly entertained the suspicion that the man being carried away by the petitioners was the deceased; for the motive whereof it is alleged that one Nazir Ahmad son of Raja caste Tarar was murdered by the deceased's brother Salehon, who is awaiting trial.
2. Learned A.A.-G. Opposing the bail petition pointed out the following incriminating evidence.
Statement of Nazar Muhammad Lumbardar vouching that the petitioners butchered the deceased with a Toka, sliced his body into pieces and disposed that of; ocular account of two eye-witnesses namely Iftikhar Ahmad and Munir Ahmad, who were allegedly staying with the deceased on the night of occurrence, evidence of Afzal and Taj Muhammad qua disposing of pieces of the deceased's body in the Goghera Branch Canal, and extra-judicial confession of petitioners 1 and 2 before Abdul Waheed and Ishtiaq.
3. While learned counsel for the petitioners replying the contentions submitted that they have been falsely roped in with a view to dissuading them from prosecuting the murder case of Nazir Ahmad referred to above, wherein father of petitioner No,1, brother-in-law of the deceased, is an eye- witness, petitioners 2 and 3 are respectively son and paternal-nephews of the deceased, while petitioner No,4 is nephew of co-accused Muhammad Sadiq another eyewitness; that the dead body has not been recovered, that the F.I.R. Was lodged with an unexplained delay of 8 days, that not only the alleged eye-witnesses preferred not to divulge the occurrence for 5 months but also did not support the prosecution version. Likewise, witnesses tending to vouch disposal of the dead body as well as that of the extra-judicial confession preferred to remain silent for 5 months, and all of a sudden in three successive days, viz. 11th October, 12th October and 13th October respectively, they all chose to reveal the truth which seems to be too much of coincident.
4. Prima facie, having heard the arguments canvassed at the Bar, I am of the opinion that the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners make out a case for further inquiry; consequently, petitioners are allowed bail upon furnishing bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Jaranwala.