It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there are two deceased, namely, Muhammad Yunis and Sabir, that case was got registered on the statement of Lal Din, who is father of Sabir deceased, that challan has been submitted, that eye-witnesses, namely, Muhammad Younis, Umar Draz and Lal Din have exonerated the present petitioner and during the trial they were declared hostile, that as far as, Ali Ahmad eye-witness is concerned, neither his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Was recorded by the police during the course ofinvestigation nor he was produced by the prosecution, the F.I.R. Was lodged on 15/16-8-2002, but now, one Ashfaq, who is, father of Muhammad Yasin deceased had filed a complaint on 21-5-2003 in which Muhammad Ameer and Muhammad Zaman P.Ws'. statements were recorded as preliminary evidence, although till today no summon or warrant has been issued against the present petitioner, that all the witnesses have exonerated the present petitioner, so his case is of further inquiry falling under subsection 2 of section 497, Cr.P.C.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State concedes that all the eye-witnesses mentioned in the challan case were declared hostile and they have not supported the prosecution case.
3. Heard. Record perused. As all the eye-witnesses including the complainant, who is father of Sabir deceased have exonerated the petitioner, therefore a case of further inquiry falling under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Is made out in favour of the present petitioner. In this view of the matter, this petition is accepted. Petitioner is allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the tune of Rs.50,000 (Fifty thousand) with two sureties in the like-amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.