ARIF IQBAL HUSSAIN BHATTI, J.---Murtaza accused/petitioner has applied for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.976, dated 21-11-1994, offence under section 302/109/148/149, P.P.C., P.S. Saddar, Gujranwala. F.I.R. Was lodged by the complainant Ghulam Sarwar. The brief facts as stated by the complainant, are that his father was murdered by Islam-ud-Din etc., and the case is pending in Court. Islam-ud-Din etc. Could not be arrested. They used to send massages to the complainant to abandon the prosecution of the case otherwise it would not be good for them. On 20-11-1994 at 10/11 p.m., the complainant, his grandfather Sher Muhammad, Muhammad Saleem and other P.Ws.
Were present at their lands. Islam-ud-Din armed with Klashnikove, Muhammad Iqbal armed with 222 rifle, Muhammad Akram, armed with .30 bore pistol, Muhammad Aslam armed with .12 bore gun, Muhammad Yaqub armed with 7 MM, Manzoor armed with 222 rifle, Amant A.I and Muhammad Akram armed with pistols while Hayat Khan armed with 222 rifle came there. All the accused were identified in the light of the moon. Muhammad Aslam accused raised Lalkara to finish them for pursuing the case. Sher Muhammad went inside the room of the Dera. Islam-ud-Din fired a burst of the Klashnikov which hit him and he fell on the ground. The other accused also opened fires. Complainant, Muhammad Saleem, Wali Muhammad and Muhammad Boota ran towards the fields to save their lives. Muhammad Saleem was overpowered at a distance of 7/8 acres by the accused. Islam-ud-Din, Iqbal and Hayat Khan opened fire at him and he died at the spot. Sher Muhammad also succumbed to the injuries. It was alleged in the F.I.R. That these murders took place at the behest and instigation of Ashraf, Murtaza, Atta Muhammad and Muhammad Khalid.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submitted that the petitioner was involved due to enmity mentioned in the F.I.R. The names of the witnesses of conspiracy were not mentioned in the F.I.R. The statements of the so-called witnesses of conspiracy were recorded after considerable delay. The petitioner is in judicial lock-up for more than one year.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The points raised by the learned counsel deserve consideration. The petitioner's case requires further enquiry.
In the circumstances of the case, he is, therefore, allowed bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Judge.