' Muhammad Wazir son of Ghous Muhammad and Muhammad Nasir son of Sultan Ahmad, petitioners, have sought their post-arrest bail in a case F.1.R. No,252 of 2000 dated 27-7-2000 registered under sections 302/201 and 34, P.P.C. At Police Station Burjwala, District Sahiwal.
2. The case was registered on the statement of one Muhammad Hanif son of Abdul Ghafoor (who has now been summoned as an accused in the complaint case relating to the same offence).
According to the F.I.R. On 26-7-2000 at evening time, the complainant and Shaukat All alias Jogi (deceased) were fishing at the Canal Lower Bari Doab, when Muhammad Nasir armed with Churi, Muhammad Riaz armed with dagger, Malik Din alias Malka and Muhammad Wazir armed with Sotas reached there. Malik Din alias Malka raised Lalkara. Thereafter, Muhammad Nasir gave a Churi blow to Shaukat Ali deceased and Muhammad Riaz also inflicted daggar blow on the person of Shaukat Ali, who fell down. It is also mentioned in the F.I.R. That Malik Din alias Malka and Muhammad Wazir, who were armed with Sotas also inflicted injuries on the person of Shaukat Ali deceased. It is further stated in the F.I.R. That the deceased was . Thrown in the canal. The complainant was also injured by the accused and the whole incident was seen by Muhammad Bashir and Muhammad Jamil P.Ws. The motive as given in the F.I.R. Was that the accused suspected relationship between the deceased and the daughter of Muhammad Wazir, accused.
3. The matter was not reported to the police on 26-7-2001 and the same was reported at 12-35 noon on 27-7-2001. It will be appropriate to mention here that the first informant (now one of the accused) neither reported the matter to the police nor to the family members of the deceased.
4. The dead body was found on 28-7-2001 and according to the post-mortem report there was only one injury on the neck, which had been cut through and through and the head and the face of the deceased could not be recovered from he canal.
5. On 28-7-2001 the brother and father of the deceased joined the investigation and identified the dead body.
6. However, Muhammad Saddique father of the deceased being not satisfied with the investigation of the police, filed a writ petition before this Court, wherein he took stance that the police has colluded with Muhammad Hanif, first informant and he could not know the contents of the F.I.R. And after going through the contents of the F.I.R., he came to know that Muhammad Hanif, who in fact was an accused, had narrated the incorrect story in the F.I.R.
7. After the order of this Court, the statements of Muhammad Siddique and his P.Ws. Were recorded and Muhammad Hanif, first informant, was also included in the list of accused. However, Muhammad Siddique father of the deceased again being not satisfied with the investigation of the police filed a complaint against the four accused mentioned in the F.I.R. And Muhammad Hanif, first informant. The accused have been summoned in the complaint case as accused.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has taken the following grounds for the grant of bail:-
(i) That the report as given in F.1.R. Was found to he false and the P.Ws. Mentioned in the F.I.R. Did not support the story of the F.I.R.
(ii) That Muhammad Hanif, first informant, was included in the list of the accused subsequently.
(iii) That the version put forward by Muhammad Siddique, father of the deceased, is an afterthought and has been developed after the recovery of the dead body and since there was only one sharp-edged injury on the dead body of Shaukat Ali deceased, Muhammad Riaz accused has been given the major role of inflicting a fatal blow on the perse of the deceased while the other accused have been given various roles like holding legs, sitting on the abdomen and holding of arms, so as to enhance the number of the accused.
(iv) That the P.Ws. Mentioned in the F.J.R.' namely Muhammad Jamil and Muhammad Bashir did not appear before the police after the registration of the case and their statements were recorded by the police on 14-8-2000 after 19 days of the occurrence.
(v) That the petitioners were found innocent during the investigation. And
(vi) That no recovery was effected from the petitioners.
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant and the State have vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners on the grounds that they are named as accused in the F.I.R.' that they had facilitated the commission of the offence and although Muhammad Bashir and Muhammad Jamil P.Ws. Made their statements after 19 days of the registration of the case yet they had no enmity to falsely involve the petitioners in the instant case; that the case falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, the bail should be refused as a rule and that the copies of the statements of the P.Ws. Under section 265-C, Cr.P.C. Have been supplied to the petitioners/accused and the next date of hearing is fixed in the complaint case as 15-9-2001.
10. I have' heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It has been noticed that it is a case of two versions. The story of the F.I.R. Was not only disowned by the father of the deceased (Muhammad Siddique) but he has given his own version in the complaint.
Muhammad Bashir and Muhammad Jamil, P.Ws. Mentioned in the F.I.R. Also did not support the story of the F.I.R. The perusal of the complaint as well as the statements of the P.Ws. (Muhammad Bashir and Muhammad Jamil) shows that the petitioners did not cause any injury to the deceased.
The only allegation against them is to facilitate the offence. The story of the F.I.R. Is also belied by the post-mortem examination report. No recovery has been effected from the petitioners and they have been found innocent during the investigation. There is no plausible explanation on record to justify that why Muhammad Bashir and Muhammad Jamil P.Ws. Lid not appear before the police till 14-8-2000 although they had seen the occurrence on 26-7-2000. Malik Din alias Malka, who allegedly facilitated the commission of offence, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order, dated 14-3-2001.
11. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the allegation against the petitioners needs further probe within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. The bail cannot be withheld on the ground that the trial is likely to be commenced in near future. Once the Courts came to the conclusion that the allegation against the accused/petitioner needs further probe, the grant of bail is the rule, as held in the case of Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafiq and others (PLD 1989 SC 585).
12. For what has been discussed above, I admit the petitioners to bail, subject to their tendering bail bonds in the sum of Rs,two lacs with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Judge.
13. Disposed of.