' Muhammad Jameel, the petitioner through the instant petition has sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,186 dated 1-8-2002, under section 302/34, P.P.C., registered with Police Station, Talumba District Khanewal.
2. Briefly the allegation against him is of Qatl-i-Amd of deceased Abdul Sattar.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in; that he is not named in the F.I.R., that on 20-9-2002 the Investigating Officer has expressed his opinion that the complainant had not been able to produce any evidence against him to connect him with the crime; that no incriminating article was recovered from him; that there is no incriminating evidence against him on record and in these circumstances the case against him calls for further inquiry into his guilt; and that he is behind the bars since 6-9-2002 and is previous non-convict.
4. Conversely, the learned State counsel assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the petition on the ground that he is in the supplementary statement of Abdul Ghaffar, Din Muhammad and Mst. Parveen recorded on the same day i,e,, 1-8-2002 has been stated to be the murderer of the deceased Abdul Sattar and so he is connected with the alleged offence.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made from both the sides with the help of available record.
6. The fact remains that he is hut named in the F.I.R. He on the basis of suspicion laid against him in the statement of Abdul Ghaffar and Muhammad Ali has been implicated in the instant case. Syed Mukhtar Hussain Shah, S.-1./S.H.O. Of the concerned police station in his case diary dated 20-9- 2002 has mentioned that the complainant party sticks to their version that he is murderer of the deemed while he claims himself to be innocent and that the complainant party could not produce any evidence or proof against him.
7. Besides than this, no incriminating recovery of any kind has been effected from him. All the above factors render his case to further inquiry and so the same is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
8. He is stated to be behind the bars eversince his arrest and a previous non-convict. In these circumstances, the case for his enlargement on bail has been made out. Resultantly, this petition is accepted and he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. I may mention here that any observation made above shall not influence the mind of the trial Court.