1994 P Cr (PLP)

Talib H. Rizvi for Petitioner. Ch. Abdur Rashid for the State. Zahid Hussain Bokhari for the Complainant. This petition for grant of bail has been moved on behalf of Mushtaq Ahmad, petitioner, who stands arrested in a murder case registered under F.I.R. No.43/91, dated 25-1-1991, under section 302/34 read with section 109, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Khanqah Dogran, District Sheikhupura, lodged by Muhammad Nawaz, uncle of Muhammad Abbas, deceased.

2. In the F.I.R., the petitioner alongwith three others has been named to have fired at the deceased with Klashnikoves on 25-1-1991 at 11-00 a.m. in the vicinity of village Salar Bhatian, as a sequel to earlier enmity existing between the parties. The petitioner's fire allegedly hit the deceased on left arm and the bullet piercing through and through entered the body and proved fatal besides other injuries. The petitioner allegedly remained absconder till he was arrested on 12-8-1991. No weapon of offence has been recovered from him. The petitioner's bail plea was declined by the lower Court, hence this petition.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the State and have also perused the record.

4. Admittedly the petitioner was found guilty by three different police Investigating Officers who challaned him to Court placing his name in Column No.3 of the charge-sheet. Subsequently the case was re-investigated by Nazir Ahmad, Inspector/S.H.O. under the orders of the I.-G. Police who vide his case diary, dated 12-4-1993 on the basis of statements of eight persons that at the relevant time the petitioner was present at the Dera of Mathela, some 10 acres away from the spot, had held that he did not participate in the occurrence. Consequently he submitted supplementary challan to Court placing his name in Column No.2. The Investigating Officer, further stated that aforesaid persons had appeared in defence of the petitioner even earlier before the D.S.P. on 8-2-1993. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that as a matter of fact said witnesses of alibi of the petitioner appeared before the other Investigating Officers also but they did not record their statements and therefore, they kept agitating the matter before the higher Police Officers and ultimately they succeeded in February, 1993, in bringing their statements on record.

5. Obviously there are two different findings by the police Investigating Officers i.e. the first set of Investigating Officers held the petitioner as guilty whereas the last Investigating Officers held' him as innocent. Learned counsel for State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant says that the material on the record on the basis of which Inspector Nazir Ahmad has held the petitioner as innocent is not good and sound one. I am afraid the evaluation of evidence at this stage by this Court would prejudice the case of either side. I, therefore, refrain from doing so. However, on account of the fact that there are contradictory findings by different police Investigating Officers as to the guilt/innocence of the petitioner and one of the Investigating Officers has placed the name of the petitioner in Column No.2, I find that the case of the petitioner needs further inquiry about his complicity in the crime, so it is amply covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. and as such he is entitled to grant of concession of bail. Consequently, I allow this petition and direct that the petitioner be released subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, during the pendency of trial. Disposed of. N.H.Q./M-1552/L Bail allowed.