' On 28-1-1993 at Police Station Duman Chakwal a case under section 302/34, P.P.C. Was registered against Muhammad Khan, Muhammad Nazir, Muhammad Azad and Muhammad Ashfaq accused at the instance of Ghulam Hussain complainant.
2. The allegation against the accused is that they, during the night between the 27th and 28th January, 1993 caused the death of Muhammad Ashraf deceased by strangulation.
3. Muhammad Khan accused, petitioner herein, who was arrested on 5-2-1993 has applied for his bail.
4. I have heard the parties' learned counsel and have also gone through the record.
5. Admittedly, the parties are inter-related. Ghulam Hussain complainant is the father of Muhammad Ashraf deceased. The latter was the husband of the step-daughter of the petitioner.
The complainant's daughter Mst. Amin Begum is the wife of Muhammad Nazir accused, the step- son of the petitioner. Muhammad Azad accused is the real son of the petitioner. According to the prosecution on 27-1-1993 the deceased took away his estranged wife Mst. Saceda from the house of his in-laws. She, however, came back on the same day at about Peshiwela. At about Khuftanwela the deceased came to the house of his in-laws to take her back. Allegedly an altercation took place between him and the accused persons. Chaudhry Khan and Fida Hussain P.Ws. Appeased them. Later on in the morning of the 28th January, 1993 Mst. Amin Begum P.W. Told the complainant that the abovementioned accused persons had killed the deceased by strangulation.
6. It is evident from the F.I.R. That the only eye-witness of the occurrence was Mst. Amin Begum who is the wife of Nazir accused and the daughter of the complainant. She has sworn an affidavit to the effect that she had not seen the accused killing the deceased on the fateful night and that her statement before the police was made under coercion and duress, for, her father had threatened to kill her if she did not make a statement against the accused. Today she has also appeared before this Court and supported the version contained in her affidavit. She was the only eye- witness in this case who has resiled from her statement before the police and sworn an affidavit exculpating the accused. In this view of the matter, prima facie, there appears to be no material on record to connect the accused with the offence charged against them. Obviously the case requires further inquiry. In this regard reliance is placed on Allah Bakhsh v. Nazar Hussain Shah and another 1979 SCMR 137.
7. Learned counsel for the State vehemently contended that the dead body was found in the house of the accused. Fida Hussain, Chaudhry Khan and Haji Zar P.Ws. Had seen the accused altercating with the deceased on the fateful night, a ligature mark was found on the neck of the deceased during post-mortem examination, and therefore, it could easily be presumed that the earlier statement of Mst. Amin Begum P.W. Was true and the deceased had been done to death by the accused. The contention raised by the learned counsel is devoid of force. The circumstances which he has narrated may create a suspicion against the accused but they cannot be convicted on the basis of a suspicion howsoever strong it may he.
8. In view of the above discussion I am of the view that this is a fit case for the grant of bail. The petitioner, therefore, is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Chakwal.