' Ashfaq petitioner, alongwith his father Muhammad Siddique, stands accused of the murder of one Shaukat Ali, through F.I.R. No,252/92 of Police Station Shahkot of District Sheikhupura. As per the complainant, the motive for the said murder was that the complainant party who had agreed to marry Shaukat All deceased to Mst. Yasmin, a daughter of Siddique accused and a sister of Ashfaq petitioner, had subsequently broken this engagement. About the actual occurrence it was stated that Shaukat deceased had left his house at about 7-30 a.m. On the day of occurrence while accompanied by his father Muhammad Hussain complainant and just as the two were standing on the road, Siddique accused emerged there with a .222 bore rifle and fired shots at Shaukat deceased who fell down whereafter, Ashfaq petitioner snatched the abovesaid rifle from his father and fired a further shot at the fallen deceased which hit on the back of the deceased.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ashfaq petitioner has been falsely and maliciously involved only because he was the son of Siddique accused; that the motive as alleged was not plausible and that it was' also implausible that after the father had shot and injured the deceased who had fallen down, he would then hand over his licensed rifle to his son so that he could also fire a shot at the deceased enabling the two to go to the gallows together. The learned counsel adds that the plea of Siddique accused during the course of investigation was that Shaukat deceased had developed illicit liaison with Mst. Yasmin, the daughter of Siddique accused and it was after he had found his daughter missing from the house that he went out in search of her and finding the two together, he shot the deceased to death. The learned counsel further submitted that on an application made to the local Magistrate by Siddique accused, his above- mentioned daughter, namely Mst. Yasmin was medically examined on 24-12-1992 who despite being an unmarried girl, had been found by the doctor to be used to committing sexual intercourse and even her vaginal swa bs which had been taken and sent for chemical examination, had been found to have been stained with semen. It is further contended that the I.O. Had reached a conclusion that Ashfaq petitioner had not participated in the occurrence in any manner whatsoever and had reached the place of occurrence after the murder had been committed and that it was on the insistance of the complainant party that Ashfaq petitioner had also been challaned.
3. The learned counsel for the complainant, however, has very vehemently argued against the grant of bail. He has contended that Ashfaq petitioner was specifically named in the F.I.R. As the one who had also contributed in the murder of Shaukat deceased by firing a shot at him; that deeper appreciation of facts and merits could not be undertaken for the purposes of grant of bail; that the prosecution story was plausible and it was on account of the breaking of the engagement by the complainant party, that Ashfaq petitioner and his father had killed the deceased; that whatever opinion had been formed by the I.O. Regarding the non-participation of Ashfaq petitioner in the occurrence in question, had been formed before the arrest of the petitioner and his father and was thus tentative, which in any case was not binding on this Court; that Ashfaq petitioner was never declared innocent by the I.O. And that in the circumstances, the petitioner was not entitled to the concession of bail.
4. The I.O. Present in Court has not denied the fact that Siddique accused had pleaded before him that it was on account of his daughter's illicit liaison with Shaukat deceased and on account of the two having been seen together that Siddique accused had killed the deceased. He has also verified the fact that the said daughter of Siddique accused had been medically examined under the orders of a Magistrate and the opinion of the examining doctor was that she was used to committing sexual intercourse and the Chemical Examiner had found the vaginal swabs of the said daughter to be stained with semen. He has also not denied that witnesses had appeared before him to state that Ashfaq petitioner had not taken any part in the occurrence and had reached the spot after Shaukat deceased had been killed. He also read out the conclusion reached by him on 31-12-1992 that Ashfaq petitioner had not participated in the occurrence and that all the injuries on the person of the deceased had been caused by his father Siddique accused and further that Ashfaq petitioner had reached the venue of occurrence after Shaukat deceased had already died. The fact that this opinion had been formed by the I.O. Before the accused persons had been actually arrested, is not really relevant, especially when the I.O. States before me that even after the arrest of the accused persons, he had never changed his above-mentioned conclusion although he adds that he had challaned Ashfaq petitioner and had not declared him innocent.
5. In view of the above-noticed submissions and the facts, I find that the petitioner has made out a case for his release on bail. He is accordingly admitted to bail subject to his furnishing security in the sum of Rs,25,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Sheikhupura.