' Ghulam Muhammad and Muhammad Azam petitioners being an accused in case F.I.R. No, 29/93, dated 254-1993 registered at Police Station Saddar Okara District Okara under sections 302/109/34, P.P.C. have moved this Court for their release on bail pending the decision against them.
2. The brief facts as narrated in the F.I.R. are as under:--- ' That the complainant and his father Sadar Din on 254-1993 at about 8-30 a.m. were coming to District Court in order to appear before the Court in respect of a criminal case under section 324/34, P.P.C. When they reached near Madina Town all of a sudden Ghulam Murtaza, lftikhar sons of Ghulam Muhammad, Muhammad Jamil son of Shah Muhammad all armed with pistols and Yousaf armed with datar, attacked on the complainant party. Iftikhar raised a lalkara to kill Saddar Din and Muhammad Boota. He fired which hit Saddar Din at his right arm. Muhammad Jamil and Ghulam Murtaza also fired which hit on jaw and coller bone of Saddar Din, who fell down. Then again they both fired which hit on the back of Saddar Din. Muhammad Jamil fired which hit on the chest and Muhammad Yousuf gave a Datar blow to him on his right arm. The occurrence was witnessed by Fateh Muhammad son of Ghulam Muhammad, Abdul Majid all residents of Chak 6/4L besides the complainant. Saddar Din died at the spot. All the accused persons fled away alongwith their weapons.
' Motive behind the occurrence was that two years earlier Iftikhar was injured and a case was registered against the deceased, Sarfraz, Muhammad Ashraf and the complainant. Due to that grudge, Saddar Din was murdered by the accused persons at the instance of Ghulam Muhammad and Muhammad Azam.
3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that both the petitioners are not alleged to be present at the spot at the time of occurrence and the only allegation against them is that they abetted the offence. It was also argued that a wide net has been thrown to involve as many persons as possible, otherwise there was no evidence with the prosecution to support the allegation of abetment from 25-1-1993 to 23-3-1993 when the statements of two inimical witnesses were recorded in this behalf.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State half heartedly opposed the application.
5. After having heard both sides I have also gone through the record very minutely. Admittedly no bvert act has been attributed to the petitioners during the occurrence except that it is mentioned at the end of the F.I.R. that occurrence took place at the instance of the petitioners. The statements of two witnesses of the conspiracy were also recorded after about three months and their names even have not been mentioned in the F.I.R. Ghulam Muhammad petitioner is also stated to be an old person aged about 70/75 years. His case, therefore, also falls within the ambit of First Proviso of subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Although both the petitioners have now been challaned after the last investigation but earlier they were found innocent by one D.S.P. and the local police so there being a divergent view vis-a-vis the involvement of the petitioners in the case which brings their case for bail under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. Without probing deep into the merits of this case lest it may prejudice the case of either party I am of the view that ordinarily the allegation as levelled against the petitioners is considered as of needing further inquiry so I allow the petitioners to bail pending the trial against them provided they furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 50,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate Okara.