' Imran Saeed and Irfan Saeed petitioners, both the brothers, have sought their post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,87 registered at Police Station Qadirpur Raan, District Multan on 5-6-2001 for an offence under section 302/34, P.P.C.
2. The case was registered on the statement of Imran Saeed petitioner as the deceased Saeed Ahmad was his father.
3., According to the F.I.R. Saeed Ahmad deceased father of the petitioners left his house on 4-6- 2001 at about 3-00 p.m. Stating that he would return late in night. On 5-6-2001 at about 11.15 a.m. a person informed Qaisar son of Karam Khan that dead body of his cousin Saeed Ahmad has been recovered from a watercourse which was wrapped in a bag. The dead body was identified due to the identity card belonging to the deceased. On receipt of information Imran Saeed petitioner alongwith his uncle Qaisar and Liaqat P.Ws. Reached near the watercourse and saw that the hands and feet of the dead body were tied and it was lying on the ground near the bag. The dead body was identified as that of Saeed Ahmad deceased who had been murdered by some unknown person. During the investigation the police found the contents of the F.I.R. To be incorrect and implicated the petitioners as accused.
4. The petitioners were shown to be arrested-in this case on 18-10-2001 and are in judicial lock-up.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that no plausible incriminating evidence was available against the petitioners and the case has been cooked up against them to, deprive them from the inheritance of their father. It has further been argued that the prosecution case taken to extremity needs further probe and inquiry. On the other hand the learned counsel on behalf of the complainant and the learned counsel for the State have argued that sufficient incriminating evidence in the shape of extra-judicial confession, recovery of clutch-wire from Irfan Saeed and carrying of a bag by the petitioners is available on the record. It is further stated that there was no reason to falsely implicate the petitioners in the instant case:
6. I have heard the learned counsel for .The parties and have also gone through the record of the case. Abdul Aziz and Muhammad Rafiq stated before the police on 13-10-2001 that the petitioners had confessed their guilt before them. A perusal of their statements shows that the alleged confession was made before them 15/20 days prior to their appearance before the police. No reason has been offered by these P.Ws. 8 to why they did not inform the police after the confession was made before them. The occurrence took place on 5-6-2001 and the of confession cropped up in the month (,I October, 2001. As far as the statements of PW Muhammad Hassan and Ghulam Abbas are concerned it state only that a bag was put on a tractor. Their statements were also recorded on 13-10-2001 after more than four months of the occurrence. A recovery of clutch-wire has been shown to be affected from Irfan Saeed petitioner but perusal of the post-mortem report shows that a rope was found hanging around the neck of the deceased. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the allegations against the petitioners need further probe and inquiry within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Therefore, I admit the petitioners to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one hundred thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.