' This is an application for bail after arrest by Liaquat Ali petitioner in a case registered against him and two others under section 302 of the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance read with section 34, P.P.C. Vide F.I.R. No,146 dated 1-10-1991 at Police Station Kassoki, District Gujranwala.
2. Brief facts as narrated in the F.I.R. Lodged by Saif Ullah the complainant are that Irshad Hussain deceased was taken by Liaquat Ali and his co-accused namely Azhar Zaman and Manzoor Ahmad from the house of the complainant on 28-9-1991 and thereafter the deceased had not returned to the house. On 1-10-1991, the complainant lodged the report apprehending murder of Irshad Hussain by the aforesaid persons. During the investigation, the petitioner and Azhar Zaman co-accused jointly pointed out and got recovered the dead body of the deceased from a ditch. After due investigation, the petitioner and Azhar Zaman co-accused were challaned to Court to face their trial, while Manzoor Ahmad was placed in column No,2 of the challan. The petitioner had applied for his bail before the learned Sessions Judge but the same was refused by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, on 5-7-1992. Hence, this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Azhar Zaman co-accused was allowed bail by this Court on 26-9-1992 and the case of the petitioner is not distinguishable from that of his co- accused. He further submits that there was a delay of three days in lodging the F.I.R.; that the evidence of the last seen comes from, the interested witnesses and stands uncorroborated by any reliable piece of evidence; that the dead body was allegedly recovered at the joint pointation of the two; the petitioner and his co-accused Azhar Zaman, which is inadmissible and unwarranted by law; that there was no evidence to connect the petitioner with the crime and that the petitioner is in judicial lock-up for the last about eleven months but the trial has not yet started. On the other hand the learned State counsel assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the grant of bail by submitting that the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution was sufficient to connect the petitioner with the crime.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant and have perused the record.
5. I feel persuaded by the arguments extended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case of the petitioiner stands on the same footing as that of his co-accused namely Azhar Zaman who was allowed Wail by this Court on 26-9-1992; that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. Has not been explained; that the evidence of last seen, being the weakest type of evidence, does not get corroboration from any other reliable piece of evidence; that the joint pointation of the dead body by the petitioner and his co-accused would not help the prosecution; that the petitioner is in the judicial lock-up for the last about 11 months and the trial has not yet started. It would be subject to further inquiry if the evidence on the record connects the petitioner with the crime. In these circumstances without going deep into the merits of the case so as to prejudice the case of either party, this petition is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge, Gujranwala.