' Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated, that in fact the deceased tried to commit suicide and in that process petitioner tried to save her but he was also burnt, that on the order of this Court, he has placed on record medico-legal report of present petitioner, that dying declaration is a fabricated one and that case has been found to be doubtful by the Investigating Agency. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record medico legal report of the present petitioner, which shows that he was also burnt in this case.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that there is dying declaration of the deceased, that petitioner is named in the F.I.R., that there was no question of false implication of the present petitioner, that petitioner was medically examined later on, on 6-9-2003 and that offence alleged against the petitioner falls within the ambit of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In the instant case, father of the deceased Shakeela Akhtar, namely, Muhammad Younas lodged the F.I.R. On 14-8-2003 about an occurrence which took place on 12-8-2003, he was not an eye-witness. According to the judicial record, the deceased made dying declaration on 15-8-2003 but there is also a paper which has been signed by.
Shakeela Akhtar in which she had A categorically stated that she had sprinkled the kerosene oil on her body and thereafter, got her burnt and Khalid Maqsood petitioner tried to save her and in that process he was also burnt. I have also gone through the case diaries. According to the investigation conducted by Abdul Sattar. S.-I., which is a detailed one, he has found the dying declaration to be of a doubtful nature, he also came to the conclusion that case against the petitioner is false, thereafter, the matter was investigated by Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad, D.S.P.
Investigation Circle, Faisalabad, he also verifies the investigation of Abdul Sattar S.-I. But stated in the last Zimnee that the matter is left at the mercy of the Court.
' After having heard learned counsel for the parties, going through the judicial file and the case diaries, I am of the considered' opinion that case of the present petitioner is of further inquiry falling under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, this petition is accepted. Petitioner is allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bond to the tune of Rs,50,000 (fifty thousand) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.