SHAKEEL AHMAD Versus State
ORDER
SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.--- Muhammad Dilbar, the complainant of FIR No.116/2016, dated 28.03.2015, under sections 302, 34, 109, P.P.C., Police Station Narang, Sheikhupura has alleged that his elder brother Muhammad Jamil was heard shouting the words "they would murder him" at about 11:00 p.m. on 27.03.2016, by his neighbour Muhammad Ayub, who immediately informed him, his maternal nephew Muhammad Zubair and paternal nephew Muhammad Asif, whereon they all rushed to the house of Muhammad Jamil and found him lying there unconscious, badly wounded with multiple wounds at his chest, abdomen, neck and waist; the assailant(s) had escaped; they all lifted him from the spot so as to shift him to a hospital but he could not be taken thereto, as he breathed his last on the way; his brother had been murdered by some unknown accused due to some unknown motive.
2. The complainant rendered a supplementary statement on 12.04.2016, whereby he contended that he had been informed by Qamar Zaman and Muhammad Akhtar that Shakil Ahmad (petitioner) visited him the same day, highly perturbed and he disclosed before them that he had murdered Muhammad Jamil on the asking of his wife Mst. Sobia. Muhammad Akhtar and Qamar Zaman joined investigation, the same day and rendered statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. to the same effect as deposed about by Muhammad Dilbar (complainant). The evidence of wajtakkar was rendered by Yaseen and Muhammad Nasir on 12.04.2016, who contended before the police that they had seen Shakil Ahmad riding a motorcycle at 11:15 p.m. on 27.03.2016 with a chhuri in hand and he moved toward the main road from the village side. Another team of witnesses Muhammad Tahir and Qasim joined investigation on 12.04.2016 and contended before the I.O.that they had overheard a conversation between Muhammad Jamil's wife Mst. Sobia and Shakil Ahmad (petitioner) from inside the house of the deceased and she commanded Shakil Ahmad to murder her husband Muhammad Jamil, as he knew about their illicit relationship inter se. The petitioner got recovered a motorcycle on 23.04.2016 and a chhuri, not bloodstained, on 24.04.2016.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that Muhammad Jamil was callously murdered by some unknown persons at about 11:00 p.m. on 27.03.2016, when he was all alone at his residential house and his wife Mst. Sobia having gone to the house of her real sister, living in Muridkey, to attend a marriage ceremony. When Muhammad Dilbar (complainant) and his companions entered the house of Muhammad Jamil, he lay unconscious with multiple stab-wounds on his body. He could tell nothing to his brother and others being senseless and could not be taken to the hospital as he succumbed to the injuries on the way. The evidence of extra judicial confession of the accused (petitioner) has been tendered by Muhammad Akhtar and Qamar Zaman through their statement under section 161, Cr.P.C., recorded on 12.04.2016. They happened to be the first cousins of the complainant but they did not react at all to his confessional statement and calmly saw him leaving, without a muscle they moved. They have not mentioned in their statements that the accused held some weapon when he visited them to confess his guilt about the murder of Muhammad Jamil. Their conduct did not look much impressive. The evidence of wajtakkar is equally fragile, as both the witnesses Yaseen and Muhammad Nasir did not say a word as to presence of some light at the place, where they allegedly saw the accused driving a motorcycle at 11:15 p.m. on 27.03.2016 and moving toward the main road from the village-side. The contention of Muhammad Tahir and Qasim, who allegedly overheard a conspiratorial chat between Muhammad Jamil's wife, Mst. Sobia co-accused and Shakil Ahmad (petitioner) some days before the occurrence, whereby, she asked the latter to murder her husband, as he had known about their illicit liaison inter se, also looked a bit preposterous, as they both were close relations to the complainant, but they kept this secret with them for so many days before they opened their lips on 12.04.2016 and in the meanwhile Muhammad Jamil had been disposed of by the accused. The evidentiary value of the circumstantial evidence, noted as hereinabove, may be better assessed by the learned trial court, after recording evidence of the parties at trial. It may not, however, be out of place to observe that such sort of circumstantial evidence may easily be manoeuvred by the prosecution wherever direct connecting evidence against the accused did not come their way.
4. The petitioner allegedly got recovered a motorcycle, not belonging to the deceased, on 23.04.2016 and a chhuri, which is not bloodstained on 24.04.2016. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that some call-data had been collected by the investigating officer during the course of investigation, which apparently established repeated telephonic contact between the petitioner and his female co-accused. It could not, however, be located from the record, as to numbers of the SIMS, their cell-phones were loaded with on the day of the alleged occurrence. The petitioner was arrested on 14.04.2016 and he has been in jail since then. He is no more needed by the police for the purpose of any recovery etc. Sufficient reasons existed to believe that his case called for further probe into his guilt within the scope of section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
5. Therefore, this application is accepted and petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
WA/S-20/L Bail granted.