1. ' A case was registered on the 19th of December 1976, under section 302/34, P. P. C. At the instance of one Muhammad Sharif whose sala Muhammad Hanif had been shot dead. In the F. I. R.
2. Muhammad Sharif had stated that he was accompanying Muhammad Hanif deceased on a mare when two unknown persons met them out of which one was carrying a gun and the other was armed with a Bang. The one who carried a gun fired at the deceased and thus murdered him injuring also the mare. The description of these two persons was given in the F. I. R. And he had stated that he could identify them if they were to appear before him. The occurrence had taken place after sunset. Muhammad Sharif had further stated that he left the deceased behind and came to inform about the occurrence to Mian Mustafa Wattoo, Sardar Salim Haider petitioner and the deceased's brother Muhammad Tufail. On the basis of the aforesaid F. I. R. Which did not contain the names of the petitioners as accused persons, Muhammad Zulfiqar, S. I., Police Station, Dipalpur conducted the investigation. It seems that on the 20th of December 1976, the mare was got examined by a Veterinary Surgeon who gave the opinion that she had not been hit by any stray pellet but was injured with a sharp-edged pointed weapon like a suaa. On this the matter was investigated further. Statement of Muhammad Sharif, the first informant was recorded by the local police on the 23rd of December 1976, in which he confessed before the police that he had not accompanied the deceased but was made first informant by Mian Muhammad Hassan Wattoo petitioner, Sardar Salim Haider petitioner and Mian Mustafa Wattoo. Thereafter, on the same date the statement of Muhammad Sharif was recorded under section 164, Cr. P. C. By the Magistrate. This statement has been placed on. The record as Annexure 'C'. It is evident from a perusal of this statement that Muhammad Sharif had no knowledge of the incident and he was not an eye- witness of the occurrence. In any case, he did not implicate any of the petitioners, on the contrary he stated that he learnt about the incident through the petit oners and that the deceased was taken to the hospital in the car of Sardar Salim Haider petitioner. Thus, what is clear is that the statement made by Muhammad Sharif on the basis of which a case was registered under section 302/34, P. P. C. Was absolutely different than the statement made by him under section 164, Cr, P. C.
3. Before the Magistrate. The next stage comes when Muhammad Zulfiqar S. I. Records the statement of Abdul Ghani under section 161, Cr. P. C. On the 10th of January 1977, i,e, about three weeks after the occurrence. This Abdul Ghani states before the Investigating Officer that the present petitioners along with Mian Mustafa Wattoo, Yaru and Khalil had conspired for the murder of the deceased because the deceased was carrying on an illicit affair with the sister of Mian Mustafa Wattoo. It may be pointed out here that according to learned counsel for the petitioners the deceased and Mian Mustafa Wattoo are second cousins. After having recorded the statement of Abdul Ghani the local police was after the arrest of the present petitioners and others. Thereafter, what happened is that Haji Mirza Jamal Din is stated to have produced Mian Muhammad Hassan petitioner, Haji Muhammad Hassan produced Khalil and Shakir Shah produced Sardar Salim Haider petitioner before the police on the 18th of January 1977, and they were arrested on the same date. With the police at present are the statements of Haji Mirza Jamal Din, Haji Muhammad Hassan and Shakir Shah to the effect that the present petitioners had separately made extra-judicial confessions before them for having conspired the murder of the deceased which was accomplished through Khalil. Yaru co-accused was arrested on the 24th of January 1977, and his statement was also recorded by the Magistrate. He had stated that it was Khalil who had fired the shot which led to the death of the deceased. He did not attribute any part to himself or the others except that of conspiracy. The Investigating Officer tells me that there has been a recovery of gun from Khalil co- accused in the instant case. There was no crime empty picked up from the spot. Then it appears that Mian Mustafa Wattoo filed an application before the higher police authorities that he and the present petitioners were being falsely implicated in this case because of political rivalry and the investigation of the same he entrusted to some other investigating agency than the local police.
4. He made this application on the 28th of December 1976, and as a result the investigation was entrusted to Crimes Branch on the 4th of January 1977. Strangely enough the file of this case was not handed over to the Investigating Officer, Crimes Branch, until the 22nd of February 1977. I have asked the Investigating Officer and he inform me that from the 22nd of February 1977, upto date there was no progress in the investigation except that the statements of the present petitioners were recorded and they had stated that they were being falsely implicated due to political rivalry. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners-that they were being involved in this case because of political rivalry and political factionisms in the area. It is submitted that in the original F.
5. I. R. They were not named by Muhammad Sharif as accused persons although the deceased was sala of Muhammad Sharif. It was then submitted that subsequently the story was made out that Muhammad Hard deceased who was the second cousin of Mian Mustafa Wattoo had illicit relationship with the sister of Mian Mustafa Wattoo and this had been done for no other purpose except to humiliate the accused party. It was also pointed out that in his subsequent statement under section 164, Cr. P. C. Muhammad Sharif only stated that he was not an eye-witness of the occurrence and that he never implicated the present petitioners in the murder of the deceased. It is submitted that it was an occurrence which had not been witnessed by any one and it took place after sunset time. The accusation of conspiracy which had been levelled against the present petitioners was based on the statement of Abdul Ghani which was recorded three weeks after the occurrence and the statements of Haji Mirza Jamal Din, Haji Muhammad Hassan and Shakir Shah which were recorded on the 18th of January 1977. In other words, the investigation conducted up to the present in this case only showed that there are extra-judicial confessions which have been made by the petitioners in the presence of Haji Mirza Jamal Din and Shakir Shah for having conspired the murder of the deceased. No other evidence had been collected against the petitioners so far. It is pointed out that Mian Muhammad Hassan petitioner was Ex-MNA and there was no reason why he should make any such extra judicial confession before Haji Mirza Jamal Din lambardar who could have possibly been of no assistance or help in this murder. Similarly it is submitted that the other alleged extra-judicial confession the witness of which is Shakir Shah is fabricated. In any case, it was argued that if only the so-called extra-judicial confessions were on the record and nothing else, then the matter required further inquiry and that, therefore, the petitioners were entitled to be released on bail. I have carefully considered the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties and also perused the record brought by the investigating officer. Without commenting on the nature of evidence which had been collected against the present petitioners by the investigating agencies who had been entrusted with the investigation of this case, I admit the petitioners to bail subject to their furnishing security in the sum of Rs, 25,000 (Rupees twenty-five thousand only) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.
6. ' This petition stands disposed of. Petition allowed.