1995 PLP 1660 (MLD)

Muhammad Azam and Abdul Shakoor petitioners were arrested in pursuance of case registered against them vide F.I.R. No.737 of 1993 under section 302/324/148/149/109, P.P.C. with Police Station, Jaranwala District Faisalabad.

2. The specific role attributed to the petitioners is that Muhammad Azam was armed with shot gun 12 bore while Abdul Shakoor alias Shakoora was empty handed; Muhammad Azam petitioner fired at Ahmad Ali deceased which hit his right cheek while Abdul Shakoor alias Shakoora petitioner standing nearby had been raising Lalkara. The bail is sought on the ground that the petitioners have been found to have been falsely involved; the parties were inimical to each other; Muhammad Hanif received twelve injuries during the occurrence which fact was suppressed by the prosecution; according to Zamni No.68 Muhammad Hanif admitted before the Investigating Officer that in fact he had killed Ahmad Ali and that in Zamni No.53, Mst. Rani Bibi complainant stated that Ahmad Ali deceased was killed by Muhammad Hanif at the instance of Muhammad Azam etc. On these assertions, counsel for the petitioner seeks the concession of bail in favour of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the State has controverted this factual assertion made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has stated that all the accused persons mentioned in the F.I.R. have been found guilty both by local police as well as by the Crime Branch, Lahore.

4. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record, as case in hand has a chequered history of enmity and criminal litigation between the parties.

5. Admittedly, the parties are inimical towards each other; previously a case F.I.R. No.259 of 1993 dated 7‑4‑1993 under section 302/324/148/149, P.P.C. was got registered with Police Station, Jarranwala by the son of present complainant against Muhammad Azam petitioner and six others; who were later on discharged by the Ilaqa Magistrate and the complainant of the said F.I.R. was challaned. Similarly, Ahmad Ali deceased was nominated as an accused person and was arrested in case F.I.R. No.150 of 1993 under section 302/34, P.P.C. wherein Muhammad Nawaz deceased brother of Muhammad Azam petitioner was murdered and Muhammad Azam complainant in the aforementioned F.I.R. Admittedly, Muhammad Hanif during the occurrence received 12 injuries which have been suppressed by the prosecution and it is a fact that said Muhammad Hanif confessed before the Investigating Officer that he alone murdered the deceased as mentioned in Zimni No.68.

6. It is pertinent to note that S.P. Crimes declared all the accused guilty and the challan was submitted on 3‑11‑1994, then reinvestigation of the case has been initiated by D.S.P., Crime Branch afresh. On 3‑4‑1995, the Investigating Officer requested for a week time to finalise the investigation while on 2‑5‑1995, D.S.P. stated in the Court that according to his investigation except Muhammad Hanif all other nominated accused have been found innocent. In the F.I.R. Muhammad Hanif has been shown as empty handed; in view of the above submission of D.S.P. that all the accused have been found innocent; the Court directed the complainant of F.I.R. to appear in person. The D.S.P. now present in Court alongwith the complainant of the case stated that according to his investigation, all the accused nominated in the F.I.R. have been found guilty though the challan has not been submitted being under process which shows that the D.S.P. himself is still doubtful about the commission of the F.I.R. offence by the aforementioned accused persons in the F.I.R.

7. It is now well settled principle of law that the Courts are not End by the ipse dixit of the police in the matter of grant or refusal of bail and exercise their own independent judicial observation; that due care and caution by taking all facts into consideration and material produced before the Court. The Court must not treat the prosecution version mentioned in the F.I.R. as sacrosanct and the version of the accused to be unreliable and a bundle of lies. The Court can make only a tentative assessment at the bail stage which should neither damage the case of the prosecution nor of the accused.

8. The statements of D.S.P. Crimes Punjab, the Investigating Officer before the Court, keeping aside the previous enmity and registration of a false case under section 302, P.P.C. by the son of the deceased show that Investigating Agencies are themselves in doubt regarding the culpability of the petitioners in the commission of murder of the deceased. It is equally settled law that any benefit of doubt arises; it must go to the accused as the law should not be stretched in favour of the prosecution if any benefit arises. The previous enmity between the parties is established on the record and there is every likelihood that the petitioner would have been involved in the case due to malice. Perhaps it is due to this fact that since 1993, investigation is still in progress and the challan has not been submitted which may take more time to complete the case and that in case of trial, the same is not likely to be disposed of in the near future.

9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that case of the petitioners falls under proviso (2) to section 497, Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Jaranwala. H.B.T./M‑2145/L Bail granted.