' A case under section 302/324/34, P.P.C. Was registered for an occurrence which took place during the night between 5th and 6th of December, 1997 at about 1-00 a.m. In which Zulfiqar was done to death allegedly by Ya.Seen while armed with pistol .30 bore and Muhammad Akram armed with pistol .30 bore. The report about the occurrence was lodged by the father of the deceased namely Muhammad son of Pehlawan. It was contended in the F.I.R. That the deceased was married with Sajida Parveen, a daughter of Muhammad Yousaf. The said Muhammad Yousaf had six children and he had promised to give hand of Mst. Razia i,e, one of his daughters to Mukhtar Hussain, son of the complainant and brother of the deceased. The said Muhammad Yousaf had allegedly received sufficient amount for giving the hand of Mst. Razia to Mukhtar Hussain. Later on, the aforesaid Yousaf also promised with Muhammad Akram one of his son-in-law that hand of Mst. Razia would be given to his brother namely lqbal. The complainant alongwith his deceased son had gone to the house of Muhammad Yousaf on the unfortunate day to talk about the aforesaid affair and after taking meals had gone to their respective rooms for sleeping. At about midnight, there was a knock at the door, whereupon, the deceased got up to open the door. The complainant and the P.Ws.
Namely Baig and Allah Yar who were present with them, also got up. Zulfiqar went out after opening the door, whereupon, Yaseen and Muhammad Akram armed as aforesaid fired from their respective weapons. During the transaction, Mst. Razia Bibi was also injured as she had arrived at the spot on hearing the noise.
2. During , the investigation on 6-12-1997, the police examined the owner of the house namely Muhammad Yousaf under section 161, Cr.P.C. And he disclosed that Zulfiqar deceased had come to see him as he was ill and had taken him to Civil Hospital on the day of occurrence. During the night, Sajid Ali, the present petitioner/accused came to the room of Mst. Razia Bibi as both of them had illicit relations. The P.W. Muhammad Yousaf and Zulfiqar deceased came to know about the arrival of the aforesaid Sajid Ali, whereupon. Zulfiqar knocked at the door which was opened. By Mst. Razia.
The aforesaid Sajid Ali tried to run away but Zulfiqar confronted him, whereupon the latter fired killing the deceased. The said statement was also supported by supplementary statement of Mst.
Razia Bibi recorded on 8-12-1997. The police investigation ultimately led to the conclusion that infact Sajid Ali was the actual killer and that Yaseen and Akram were innocent. The challan was accordingly sent up against Sajid Ali on the basis of the evidence collected during the investigation.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in fact Sajid Ali was substituted for the actual killers who were closely related to Muhammad Yousaf and Mst. Razia Bibi who made supplementary statements on the basis of which the investigation took its turn against the present petitioner; that the complainant was still persistent that the actual offenders were Yaseen and Akram and not Sajid Ali; that the petitioner is behind the bars since after his arrest on 18-12-1997 and as such, is entitled to be released on bail particularly when it has become a case of further enquiry on account of two versions with the prosecution.
4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application on the ground that both the witnesses namely Yousaf and Razia Bibi were not only natural witnesses being residents of the same house but were also eye-witnesses. The mere fact that they involved the petitioner through supplementary statement would not exonerate the accused at this stage particularly when he was linked with the occurrence during the investigation and has been sent up to face the trial.
5. I have considered the foregoing submissions and find that the police investigation has linked the present petitioner with the murder of Zulfiqar on the basis of the evidence so far collected. That such evidence cannot be discarded at random lest it may prejudice the trial. It is enough to say at this stage for the limited purpose of bail that there is sufficient material on record to show that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is guilty of an offence falling within the prohibitory clause. The petitioner has no case for bail. The petition is accordingly dismissed.