' Petitioners Muhammad Hussain and Muhammad Sarwar seek bail in a case registered with Police Station Gulberg, Faisalabad, vide F.I.R. dated 12-5-1991, for offences under section 364/302/201, P.P.C. read with section 337-A of Qisas and Diyat Ordinance. The case was got registered by Bashir Ahmad with the assertion that on 9-3-1991 Muhammad Ashraf, A.S.I., C.I.A. Police, Faisalabad, came to the brick-kiln of the complainant to arrest his son Ihsanul Haq, who was not present there, whereupon the police took his younger son Tanveer Ahmad. On 13-3-1991 police again came for arrest of Ihsanul Haq, who was not present, therefore, they took away his daughter Rehana. The following day first informant produced his son Ihsanul Haq before Nisar Ahmad, A.S.P. The police released his daughter Mst. Rehana but did not release his son Tanveer Ahmad. The first informant had to file a writ petition for the release of his son Tanveer Ahmad, whereupon the police officials got in touch with the first informant and prevailed upon him to withdraw his writ petition. In case he did not, his son Tanveer Ahmad would be involved in false cases. First informant on 1-4-1991 withdrew his writ petition, thereafter police released Tanveer Ahmad; first informant's son. Said Tanveer Ahmad when came, he informed the first informant that Ihsanul Haq was being kept at a Dera, near Police Station Tandlianwala by C.IA. On the next day first informant alongwith two other persons, including an Advocate, went there and saw petitioner No,1 armed with an iron rod and petitioner No,2 armed with a Dang, alongwith. another, belabouring Ihsanul Haq. The complainant raised alarm, whereupon the petitioners started beating Ihsanul Haq and told the first informant that his son was innocent and he would be released. Ihsanul Haq because of the injuries was unconscious, therefore, the petitioners assured the first informant that he would be got treated by some doctor. Subsequently, when the first informant again got in touch with the petitioners, they tried to put him off on one pretext or the other. Ultimately, they informed thst he had absconded.
The first informant feared that he had been murdered.
2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that there was no evidence whatsoever against the petitioners connecting them with the commission of offence. Argued that there was a delay of two months in the registration of case which has not been explained. Argued that the petitioners were being victimized as Ihsanul Haq was an agent of Al-Zulfiqar Organization.
Submitted that the Investigating Agency because of mala fides is involving the petitioners when obviously the deceased was last seen in the company of other police officials. The contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the State.
3. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the file. In order to arrive at a just conclusion, Mr. Amlish A.S.P., Faisalabad was also directed to appear alongwith the file. He was heard at length as well as the entire police record was perused. The contention that the deceased's custody was handed over to some other police officials who have not been associated with the investigation is not borne out from the record. All the police officials mentioned in the F.I.R. were associated with the investigation. As far as the petitioners are concerned, there is eye-witness account to the effect that they were seen giving beating to Ihsanul Haq who became unconscious because of the injuries. There is a statement of a practising Advocate involving the petitioners in the commission of the offence. According to A.S.P. who conducted the investigation, he went to the place in a village where the deceased was kept and given beating. According to the police investigation, both the petitioners are involved in the commission of the offence and are responsible for causing the death of Ihsanul Haq.
In these circumstances, I fund no ground for grant of bail. Resultantly, the petition fails, which is, accordingly, dismissed.