ABDUL SATTAR Versus THE STATE
ORDER
This is a petition for bail on behalf of Abdus Sattar and Gulzar Ahmed who alongwith Abdul Qayyum, Khushi Muhammad and Allah Wasaya, etc. are being prosecuted in a case under section 302/34, P.P.C. for the alleged murder of Irshad son of Muhammad Nawaz complainant.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that Abdul Aziz aged about 12/13 years was an employee of Abdul Qayyum accused. Irshad deceased teased him before this occurrence. Abdul Aziz narrated the incident to Abdul Qayyum. On 24‑9‑1985, at about evening time, Ghulam Haider P.W. informed Muhammad Nawaz complainant that he (Haider) was proceeding to Bahawalpur alongwith his brother Ahmad Yar. On his way, he learnt that Abdul Qayyum accused was taking away Irshad deceased to Mailsi. They went to Abdul Qayyum at Bhaini Chah Pindi and saw Abdul Qayyum, Abdus Sattar, Gulzar Ahmad and Khushi Muhammad detaining Irshad deceased. He asked them to spare him but Abdul Qayyum did not agree. At this he (Haider) forcibly took away Irshad and sent him to his house at Chah Pindiwala. Khushi Muhammad and Gulzar followed Irshad while Abdul Qayyum and Sattar went to pacca road. It is further stated that Haider returned from Bahawalpur at about 4‑00 p.m. and learnt that Irshad was not traceable. It is further alleged that Muhammad Nawaz and Ghulam Haider went to Arain Wan. They met Abdus Sattar and inquired from him about Irshad deceased. He expressed ignorance. Similarly, Gulzar and Khushi Muhammad accused also stated that they have no knowledge about the whereabouts of Irshad. Next day, they went to Chah Pindiwala and inquired about Irshad from Allah Wasaya who told them that he had seen him on pacca road going towards his house. He did not know more than that. Qayyum accused also had no knowledge about Irshad. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that on 28‑9‑1985, Ghulam Haider informed Muhammad Nawaz complainant that the dead body of Irshad was hanging on a Sheesham tree in his land. Muhammad Nawaz complainant went there and saw the dead body in decomposed condition hanging with the tree. He suspected that Irshad was strangulated by Gulzar, Khushi Muhammad and Allah Wasaya.
3. After registration of this case, on 28‑9‑1985, the police undertook investigation. Muhammad Nawaz complainant did not produce any evidence to connect the accused named in F.I.R. with this occurrence before the Investigation Officer. However, Abdus Sattar, Gulzar petitioners and their co‑accused Khushi Muhammad, Allah Wasaya and Abdul Aziz apprehending their arrest filed an application for bail before arrest in the Sessions Court. The bail petition on behalf of Khushi Muhammad, Allah Wasaya and Abdul Aziz was allowed. On 21‑4‑1986, the Investigating Officer made statement before the Sessions Court that Muhammad Nawaz complainant failed to produce any evidence against the accused during investigation. The complainant promised in the Court to produce witnesses before the Investigating Officer on 5‑5‑1986. The bail application of present petitioners was, therefore, adjourned to 17‑5‑1986. On the date, it was reported by the Investigating Officer that Muhammad Nawaz complainant did not produce any witness before him. Muhammad Nawaz complainant who was present in Court promised to produce witnesses after Eid. The petition was, therefore, adjourned to 17‑6‑1986 with a direction to Muhammad Nawaz complainant to produce witnesses before Investigating Officer on 15‑6‑1986. No witness was produced before the Investigating Officer. However, on 17‑6‑1986, Muhammad Nawaz placed affidavits of Din Muhammad and his wife Mst. Rajan Mai dated 15‑6‑1986, before the Sessions Court. The petition was adjourned with a direction to the Investigating Officer to record statements of the said two persons. Their statements were recorded. The complainant on 20‑8‑1986, also produced one Muhammad Zafar to support the statements of Din Muhammad and Mst. Rajan Mai. In view of this evidence, the learned Sessions Judge, Vehari on 2‑10‑1986, dismissed the bail before arrest application on behalf of Abdul Sattar and Gulzar petitioners. Hence this petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned A.A.‑G. I have also perused the record of this case. Din Muhammad, his wife Mst. Rajan Mai and Muhammad Zafar P.W.1 are not eye‑witnesses of the occurrence. It was stated by them that they had seen Abdul Qayyum, Abdus Sattar and Gulzar accused beating Irshad deceased. Thereafter when they were back home in the evening, they learnt about the disappearance of Irshad deceased whose dead body was found hanging with a tree about five days thereafter Muhammad Zafar P.W. also made similar statement. It is conceded by the learned A. A.‑G. that there is no other incriminating evidence against the two petitioners. No incriminating recovery was made from the accused. Din Muhammad and his wife, for the first time, after the alleged occurrence, filed affidavits in Court on 15‑6‑1986. Muhammad Zafar P.W., for the first time, appeared before the police on 20‑8‑1986 although the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 24‑9‑1985. These three witnesses have not been named in the F.I.R. In view of these circumstances, I am of the view that the case of Abdus Sattar and Gulzar Ahmad is that of further inquiry. They are admitted to bail on their furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000 (Rupees twenty‑five thousand) with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A . C. /Duty Magistrate, Mailsi.
M.Y.H./A‑232/L Bail granted.