1985 P Cr (PLP)

Rafique Ahmed Bajwa and Shaukat Rafique Bajwa for the Complainant. This is a petition for bail filed on behalf of the petitioner. A case is registered against him under section 307/324/149, P.P.C. at Police Station Baghbanpura, Gujranwala on 24‑11‑1983. After the death of Luqman deceased, injured in the instant case in the hospital on 2‑3‑1984 section 302, P.P.C. as added thereto. In the F.I.R. the allegation against the petitioner is that he alongwith others was armed with Chhuri and caused therewith an injury in the belly of Luqman deceased. Subsequently it is stated in the F.I.R. that he instigated Muhammad Akram co‑accused to fire and thereupon Muhammad Akram co‑accused fired a shot through his revolver which hit Luqman deceased. Luqman was removed to the hospital and he died subsequently after three months. It is stated that the matter has been re‑investigated by the C.I.A. Staff and the petitioner has been found innocent in the course of investigation alongwith 5 other co‑accused persons named in the F.I.R.

2. Admit. Notice. Summon the Investigating Officer alongwith the police record. Javid Iqbal, Chief Justice 24‑6‑1984 Muhammad Arif, Advocate for Petitioner. Akhtar Shabbir, A.A.‑G. for the State with Salimullah A.S.I. with police record. Rafique Ahmed Bajwa, Advocate and Shaukat Rafique Bajwa, Advocate for the Complainant. In continuation of my order, dated 24‑6‑1984 learned A.‑A.G. has showed me the reports of investigation in this case. The part attributed to the petitioner is that he was armed with a Chhuri and he caused an injury on the left upper abdomen of the deceased therewith. The case of the petitioner is that he was only present at the scene of crime and that he was not armed with any weapon. It is further submitted on his behalf that he was empty‑handed and even the Investigating Officer had not recovered any Chhuri from him. I note that initially the case was investigated by the local police and the report of the Investigating Officer, dated 3‑1‑1984 is to the effect that the present petitioner was implicated alongwith others in the case and that only one co‑accused was found innocent in the course of investigation, namely, Abdul Waheed. Thereafter the matter was re‑investigated by D.S.P. C.I.A. who submitted his report on 10‑5‑1984. In his investigation he held the present petitioner as not having participated in the commission of the crime. His opinion was that there were three incidents which followed one after the other and that the present petitioner although present at the scene of crime did not participate in the same. In other words, according to the D.S.P. he was not armed with a Chhuri, did not use the same and no Chhuri was recovered from him. Thereafter the matter was re‑investigated by the S.S.P. Gujranwala who submitted his report on 31‑5‑1984. In his report he disagreed with the investigation of the D.S.P. that there were three incidents which followed one after the other and that present petitioner was merely a spectator. According to the report of the S.S.P. and investigation, the incident was one whole and that the petitioner was stated to be armed with a Chhuri and he is said to have caused injury therewith to the deceased in the belly although no Chhuri as such was recovered from him. Then I have also examined the medical reports in the instant case. The deceased was still alive on 24‑11‑1983 when he was medically examined and the medical evidence is to the effect that there was incised injury on the left side upper abdomen on the person of the deceased measuring 4 c.m. x 2? c.m. besides others four incised wounds. There is an other medical report dated 26‑11‑1983 to the effect that some additional injuries were found on the person of the deceased, namely, I‑A, II‑A and A III‑A which were described to have been caused with fire‑arm. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to show that the incised injury attributed to the upper side of left abdomen could in fact be a fire‑arm injury on the left side of the lower chest. I have examined the two medical reports dated 24‑11‑1983 and 26‑11‑1983 and in the light of these reports I am not inclined to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner. Be that as it may, in my view it is not a fit case for the grant of bail at this stage. This petition, therefore, is dismissed. However, I direct the trial Court to expedite the trial of the petitioner and other. M.Y.H.??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail refused.