' Liaqat Ali and Kifayat Ali petitioners were required along with Iqbal (absconder) in a case under section 302/34, P. P. C. Registered since 17th October 1972 at Police Station Civil Lines, Rawalpindi.
They surrendered themselves before the Court with a petition for pre-arrest bail (Criminal Misc. No, 2987/B of 1972) on 27th October, 1972, and were allowed the necessary protection for 15 days by my learned brother Javid Iqbal, J. To enable them to move the Sessions Judge in the first instance, who declined this concession to them, they therefore, again approached this Court with the same request and were admitted to anticipatory bail by his Lordship on 9th February 1973 in Cr. Misc. No, 3614/B of 1972, but their Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to cancel it. The petitioners thereafter surrendered before the police and the commitment proceeding against them in the course of which eight witnesses including Mahboob, one of the alleged eye-witnesses, were examined most of whom did not support the prosecution. As a result the Enquiry Magistrate enlarged them on bail which was later cancelled by the Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi. Consequently they moved yet another petition (Criminal Misc. No, 1718/B of 1974) before this Court which was likewise placed before my learned brother Javid lqbal, J., who was pleased to dispose of this petition with a direction that the Magistrate seized of the enquiry should record the statements of Muhammad Taj, Waheed Ahmad, Mushtq Ahmad, Allah Ditta and Muhammad Sabir within a period of two months. One of these witnesses, namely, Waheed Ahmad also claimed to be an eye-witness while the other had last seen the deceased in the company of two petitioners and the absconder.
2. Their evidence has since been recorded making a total of thirteen witnesses including the two alleged eye-witnesses, namely, Mahboob (P. W. 2) the driver who was stated to have carried the two petitioners, Iqbal (absconder), Waheed (P. W.9, the other eye-witness) and Banaras (deceased) on his last journey to the National Park where he was murdered on the eventful evening. Two years have gone by since this occurrence. The evidence of Waheed, the alleged eye- witness, has been contradicted by Mahboob, the most material witness in this case and some of the other witnesses had also let down the prosecution. A few of them have only deposed about having seen Banaras (deceased) in the company of the petitioners not at the spot but at different places which is not corroborated from any other source. There were no incriminating recoveries from any of the petitioners, either.
3. It may be pointed out that Mohammad Siddique (P. W. 4), a Guard of the National Park, after having seen the dead body of Banaras (deceased, in the Hawa Khan No, 5 informed Muhammad Sarwar, his Supervisor (P. W. 5), who informed the local police about it without giving any clue or suspicion against any of the petitioners for having a hand in this murder. No direct evidence was mentioned in the initial report about it and Waheed P. W., the solitary eye-witness, appeared before the police on 7th November 1974, i,e,, about three weeks after this murder. This belated disclosure with no other incriminating evidence of some consequence would certainly call for a further enquiry about their complicity in this crime the end of which is not yet in sight although two years have elapsed since the registration of the case and would entitle them to bail under section 497 (2), Cr. P. C. I, therefore, direct that both the petitioners shall be released from custody on their furnishing a bond each in the sum of Rs, 10,000.00 (Rs, Ten thousand) with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Enquiry Magistrate.