' F.I.R. In the instant case was lodged by Faqir Muhammad father of Kishwar Bibi, deceased in this case. According to F.I.R., Munawar Hussain, Sahib, Irfan, Imran, Shabbir Hussain and Asghar Ali all armed with fire-arms criminally trespassed into house of the complainant. Munawar raised Lalkara that Ghulam Mustafa (present petitioner) be killed in order to take the revenge of murder of.
Amanat Ali, maternal uncle of Munawar Hussain upon which Imran fired which hit Ghulam Mustafa on his right thigh and he fell down in injured condition. Mst. Kishwar stepped forward but she was fired at by Sahib which hit near her left ear. She fell down and died at the spot. The accused were identified in the light of bulb. The motive behind the present occurrence was enmity of murders between the parties. Ghulam Mustafa injured (present petitioner) was taken to hospital.
2. In support of this petition, learned counsel submits that, that the police recorded the supplementary statement of Faqir Muhammad, the complainant alleged to have been made on the same day, that is the day of occurrence in which he has stated that in fact Ghulam Mustafa committed the murder of Kishwar and threatened the complainant with dire consequences if he did not lodge the case against the above said six accused. Further submits that petitioner Ghulam Mustafa. Was also injured and the injury on his person is mentioned in the F.I.R. According to learned counsel, it is a case of two versions and in such an eventuality the case of the petitioner is one of further inquiry within the ambit of subsection(2) to section 497, Cr.P.C.
3. Learned counsel for the State submits that the two eye-witnesses namely Asad Ali son and Kalsoom Bibi wife of the complainant have stated in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. That Ghulam Mustafa committed the murder of the deceased Kishwar to take the revenge of earlier murder.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. No reliance can be placed on such a complainant who has firstly mentioned six accused persons in the F.I.R. While in the supplementary statement made on the same day, he named the present petitioner to be accused of murder of his daughter and also stated that what he had staled in the F.I.R. Was not correct. To my mind, prima facie, A it is a case of two versions requiring further inquiry into guilt of the petitioner brining his case within the ambit of subsection (2) to section 497, Cr.P.C. Resultantly, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.