' Zulfiqar petitioner being accused of case F.I.R. No, 235, dated 27-10-1994 under section 365/302/201/205/34, P.P.C. With Police Station Batapur has approached this Court for the grant of bail after refusal of the same by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore vide order, dated 1- 3-1995.
2. The allegations against the petitioner as disclosed in the F.I.R. Are that Muhammad Sharif complainant lodged a report that his son Ghulam Asghar was escorted by Zulfiqar petitioner from his house and did not turn up. He suspected that Zulfiqar petitioner had abducted him with an intention to commit his murder.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is unexplained delay of 34 days in lodging the F.I.R.; co-accused of the petitioner has been granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the petitioner's case being at par with him, he too is entitled to the same concession; the dead body of the alleged deceased has not been recovered so far and as such it cannot be certainly said that he was murdered and that the police recorded the statements of P.Ws. After four months of the occurrence. On these premises, the petitioner seeks the concession of bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the bail on the ground that as the trial has commenced, therefore, no good ground exists to release the petitioners bail.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
6. The case was initially registered under section 365, P.P.C. After delay of 34 days. The offence under section 302, P.P.C. Was added on 24-1-1995. The dead body of the deceased has not yet been recovered and as such at this stage, it cannot be said that he was murdered by the petitioner or his co-accused. The alleged eye-witnesses of the occurrence namely Muhammad Akram and Javed Iqbal are closely related to the deceased and are not residents of the area whose statements were recorded on 25-1-1995 whereas the statements of the witnesses who have lastly seen the deceased in the company of accused were recorded on 12-1-1995. I need not make any comments further lest it may prejudice the case of either party. I am, therefore, prima facie of the view that the case of the petitioner is one of further inquiry. Accordingly, he is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (Judi.) of this Court.
7. Before parting with this order, I am at pains to notice that the learned Additional Sessions Judge while granting bail to Iftikhar Ali co-accused of the present petitioner vide order, dated 1-3-1995 observed that as the dead body has not been recovered, therefore, it cannot be certainly said that Ghulam Asghar was done to death by the petitioner and co-accused, but in the case of present petitioner while rejecting his bail application, only 24 days thereafter, observed that:-- "The prosecution witnesses have no animosity whatsoever against the petitioner. Mere delay in lodging the report and recording the statements of P.Ws. Is not fatal to the prosecution case."
8. Direct Ch. Muhammad Siddique Garwan, Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore to explain the special considerations which weighed with him while granting bail to Iftikhar and rejecting the bail application of the present petitioner after a period of 24 days when the evidence and the material before the Court was the same. The explanation should reach this Court within a fortnight.