Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a case F.I.R. No.253, dated 27-9-1995 under sections 302, 324, 34, P.P.C. Was registered at Police Station City, Chakwal Tehsil and District Chakwal against number of persons/accused. Names of the accused are mentioned in the F.I.R. Along with the present petitioner.
2. According to the contents of the F.I.R. Sabtain Murtaza and Ghulam Raza armed with fire-arm weapons came to the house of the complainant at night about 2-00 O'clock and fired at Muhammad Afzal whereby 12 injuries were caused to him. Consequently Muhammad Afzal died at the spot. The complainant Gulzar Begum real sister of Muhammad Afzal deceased was also present at the roof of the house, she also received three injuries on her left elbow, left arm and on the right leg. All the three injuries were caused by the fire-arm weapon fired by Ghulam Subtain and Ghulam Raza. While the allegation against the present petitioner is that when the accused were going back, he raised Lalkara that he has taken the revenge. The motive for the crime is stated that the accused party had some suspicion regarding the murder of Saqlain Murtaza son of Ghulam Murtaza (the present petitioner). For this very reason they committed the murder of Muhammad Afzal, real brother of the complainant.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks bail on the grounds that though the name of the petitioner is mentioned in the F.I.R. But he was empty-handed, that allegedly he raised only Lalkara that he has taken the revenge of the murder of his son; that during investigation he was found innocent by the three Investigating Officers; that the petitioner was at Pindi Bhattian, District Hafizabad, when the alleged occurrence took place; that certain witnesses have been produced in support of his innocence (regarding the plea of alibi); that the motive is not directly attributed to the present petitioner. Learned counsel relies upon the precedents 1996 SCM R 73 and 1994 SCM R 2161.
3. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has opposed the bail petition on the grounds that there is an injured eye-witness/P.W. i.e. Mst. Gulzar Bibi real sister of the deceased; that the motive is also mentioned in the F.I.R.; that though the name of the petitioner is mentioned in Column No.2 of the challan but the findings given by the Investigating Officers are not based on cogent evidence, regarding his innocence; that Lalkara has been attributed to the petitioner but the nature of this Lalkara is totally different because quite openly he said that he has taken revenge of the murder of his son.
4. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner states that name of the petitioner has been mentioned in Column No.2 of the challan after investigation and the findings of the Investigating Officers are based on the statements of number of witnesses produced by the petitioner/accused.
Under these circumstances, he has some right to be released on bail because it is yet to be found that he is guilty or not.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
It is an admitted fact that only Lalkara has been attributed to him and that while he was leaving the alleged place of occurrence he told that he has taken the revenge of the murder of his son.
During investigation he was found innocent and the findings are based on the statements of number of witnesses, who stated before the Investigating Officers that he was present at Pindi Bhattian at a distance of about 100 Km. 'from the place of occurrence. In the F. I. R. It is stated that the petitioner was present at the place of occurrence at about 2/3-00 O'clock at midnight when the complainant and her brother along with children were sleeping at the roof in the light of lantern. This fact is not appealing that a burning lantern was kept on the roof at that moment.
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to bail, therefore, the petitioner is granted bail subject to his tendering bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Any observation made in this order shall not affect the trial of this case.