' Muhammad Nawaz alias Baghu complainant got recorded F.I.R. No,467, dated .8-8-1998 under section 302/34/109, Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Kot Moman District Sargodha at 9-15 a.m.
About the occurrence taking place at 8-30 a.m. On the same day. According to the complainant his Sharai Nikah was solemnized with Mst. Khadija alias Sheedan deceased of this case and the Rukhsati had to take place on 9-8-1998. On 8-8-1998 at 8-30 a.m. Zafar a paternal nephew of Mst.
Khadija alias Sheedan arrived and intimated her that he wanted to affect a compromise between her and her mother before the Rukhsati. She accompanied Zafar accused. They were at a distance of 5 acres from the Dera when Zafar accused fired at her with the carbine which hit her right cheek.
One unknown person was also present who also fired which hit her who fell down and expired. The cause of occurrence is that Mst. Khadija alias Sheedan worked as a domestic servant in the house of Ch. Sultan Ahmad Maila since her childhood who performed her Nikah with the complainant.
Nazir and Muhammad P.Ws. Are said to have seen the occurrence. Zafar accused and unknown person made good their escape. It is narrated in the F.I.R., that on that very morning Ghulam Rasool and Muhammad Hayat P.Ws. Went to the house (name of the owner of the house not mentioned) where Ikram and Zafar were making the conspiracy to eliminate Mst. Khadija alias Sheedan who had solemnized her Nikah without their consent and, thus, had insulted the family and that, thereafter, Mst. Khadija alias Sheedan was murdered.
2. During the investigation the statements of Ghulam Rasool and Muhammad Hayat P.Ws. Were recorded by the police to the effect that on the morning of 8-8-1998 they had seen and heard Ikram petitioner-accused and Zafar accused while making the conspiracy to murder Mst. Khadija alias Sheedan as she had insulted the family by entering herself into Nikah with Muhammad Nawaz alias Baghu.
3. Ikram petitioner-accused was arrested on 29-10-1998 whose bail plea has been rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and he has filed this petition for his admission to bail.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned State counsel and gone through the record before me. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that even though Ghulam Rasool and Muhammad Hayat P.Ws. Claimed to have heard. Ikram petitioner-accused making the conspiracy with Zafar co-accused, they did not inform any person so that Mst. Khadija alias Sheedan could be protected and that in the F.I.R., it is not mentioned as to in whose house the conspiracy was chalked out. On the contrary learned State counsel laid the emphasis that the statements of Ghulam Rasool and Muhammad Hayat have clearly connected Ikram petitioner- accused with the occurrence.
5. I would express that in the light of my following reasons which have emerged from the material collected by the police during the investigation, the involvement of Ikram petitioner-accused is a question of further inquiry:---
(i) Even though Muhammad Nawaz alias Baghu complainant got incorporated in the F.I.R., that Mst.
Khadija alias Sheedan solemnized her Sharai Nikah with him, no evidence has been collected in the matter. No Nikah Khawan, no Vakeel and no witness has been examined by the police under section 161 of the Code of Criminal IA Procedure. It means that the cause of occurrence/motive is shrouded in mystery and it seems that Muhammad Nawaz alias Baghu complainant was introduced by the Maila family for the purpose of the registration of the F.I.R.
(ii) In the First Information Report, first zimni of the Case Diary and the Inquest Report pertaining to the deceased the place (house) where Ikram petitioner-accused and Zafar accused chalked out the conspiracy has not been specified. In the aforesaid material collected and prepared thrice by the police, the name of the owner of the house where the conspiracy is said to have been made was necessary. It is pertinent to mention that in the relevant copies of the statements of Ghulam Rasool and Muhammad Hayat recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it has been entered afterwards that the said P.Ws. Went to the house of Ikram petitioner where they had heard the facts of the conspiracy. The addition of the word "Ikram" in the initial aforesaid statements of Ghulam Rasool and Muhammad Hayat is visible to the naked eyes. This aspect of the matter cannot be taken lightly which may go to the root of the matter during the trial.
(iii) It is simply surprising that the occurrence took place at 8-30 a.m. In village Sultanpur while the matter was reported at 9-15 a.m. In the Police Station Kot Moman. The distance between both the places is 13 k.m. It was not possible that, the matter could be reported to the police with the aforesaid promptitude. It, therefore, has emerged that deliberations were conducted before the registration of the First Information Report and the entries in the Daily Diary of the Police Station were stopped. This aspect is connected with the place of making out of the conspiracy as even in the presence of deliberations in the matter of registration of the F.I.R., the place (house) where the conspiracy was chalked out has not been specified.
6. It is the admitted position that Ikram petitioner did not practically take part in the occurrence. I, therefore, hold that Ikram petitioner-accused is entitled to be admitted to bail.
7. I, therefore, accept this application and admit Ikram petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge; Bhalwal District Sargodha with the direction to appear before the learned Trial Court on every date of hearing failing which the learned Trial Court may cancel his bail.