' Farman Ali and Muhammad Rashid petitioners, have sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,11 registered at Police Station Yazman on 8-1-2003, for offences under section 302/34, P.P.C.
2. The relevant facts as given in the F.I.R. Are that Muhammad Suleman, father of Muhammad Rashid petitioner, got a case registered against Mst. Haleema Bibi on 24-12-2002 at Police Station Yazman for offence under section 302, P.P.C. Relating to the murder of Muhammad Siddique, brother of petitioner Muhammad Rashid, who was allegedly administered poison. According to the F.I.R. The complainant in that case suspected that Muhammad Ashraf complainant in the instant F.I.R., had facilitated the offence. On 29-12-2002 at about 4/5 p.m. Farman and Muhammad Rashid petitioners went to the Dera of Nazir Ahmad where Muhammad Aslam was present. On seeing the petitioners Muhammad Aslam started running. He was followed by the petitioners. They reached the bank of Desert Canal within the vicinity of Chak No,44/DB, where the petitioners allegedly overpowered Muhammad Aslam and threw him in the canal. As Muhammad Aslam did not return to the house, the complainant started searching for him and was informed by the P.Ws.
Muhammad Ahmad and Zahoor Ahmad about the afore-mentioned incident. However, the complainant continued searching for his brother and received information on 8-1-2003 that the dead body of his brother was floating in the canal within the vicinity of Chak No,49/DB, therefore, the complainant alongwith other witnesses reached Burji No,137 of the canal and took out the dead body of his brother Muhammad Aslam from the canal. Thereafter, he reported the matter to the police.
3. The petitioners after completion of investigation have been sent to the judicial lock-up.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that the prosecution case was based on suspicion alone; that there was no explanation as to why the matter was not reported to the police immediately by the complainant after receipt of information that his brother had been thrown in the canal.
4-A. Conversely, the learned counsel for the complainant and the State have vehemently opposed this application and argued that a very strong motive was available against the petitioners; that two witnesses had seen the petitioner throwing the deceased in the canal; that it was not a case of substitution; and that offences attracted the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, the petitioners did not deserve the concession of bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. It has been noticed that despite the fact that two witnesses, who had seen the petitioners throwing the deceased in the canal on 29-12- 2000, did not inform about the occurrence either to the complainant or to the police immediately that the complainant, who is real brother of the deceased while searching for his brother, was informed by the P.Ws. Muhammad Ahmad and Zahoor Ahmad that his brother had been thrown in the canal on 29-12-2000 yet he did not report the matter to the police for 10 days and continued his private search; and that according to F.I.R. The petitioners had motive and grudge against the complainant and not against his deceased brother. In the circumstances the criminality of the petitioners would be determined by the learned trial Court after recording of evidence. Prima facie the allegations against the petitioner need further probe and inquiry within the ambit of subsection
(2) of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, I admit the petitioners to bail, subject to their tendering bail bonds in the sum of Rupees one lac each, with one surety each, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.