1992 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/307/109/34‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑ Accused who was not named in F.I.R. was not found involved by four Investigating Officers who independently conducted investigation, but was involved by fifth Investigating Officer‑‑‑Role ascribed to accused was that he was present on the spot and was giving cartridges to co‑accused for firing‑‑ Fifth Investigating Officer who found accused involved in the case, had not ascribed to him any overt act qua deceased or injured‑‑‑Presence of accused on the spot was highly doubtful, because he was neither mentioned in F.I.R. nor his presence was established by earlier investigations‑‑‑Case being of further enquiry, accused was allowed bail. Muhammad Akbar Tarar for Petitioner. Abdul Khaliq Khan for the State. Petitioner Haq Nawaz seeks bail in a case registered with Police Station Barana, District Jhang, for offences under section 302/307/109/34, P.P.C., vide F.I.R. dated 10‑8‑1989. The case was got registered by Sher Muhammad with the allegation that on 10‑8‑1989 at 3‑30 p.m. the first informant with his nephews Mazhar Abbas and Aslam Hayat, Allah Bakhsh, his cousin, his brother Atta Muhammad, Khan and Zahoor Ahmad were coming back from the Court of Resident Magistrate, Rabwa. They got down at Burjwali Mosque. While going to their houses, Zakir, armed with .12 bore gun, Abid with .12 bore gun, and Ahmad, empty‑handed, came. Ahmad raised a Lalkara that Aslam Hayat and Mazhar Abbas should be murdered, whereupon Zakir, co‑accused, fired thrice hitting Aslam Hayat on his right ear and in abdomen, who fell down. Mazhar Abbas was hit on his feet. Allah Bakhsh also got injured. The commotion attracted many people, whereupon the accused persons ran away.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. Argues that the investigation was conducted by four different Police Officers and all of them gave an opinion that the petitioner was not involved. Contends that lastly the investigation was conducted by a 5th Police Officer who without recording any evidence gave the opinion that the petitioner was involved in the occurrence. The petition has been resisted by learned counsel for the State. 3. 1 have heard the learned counsel and gone through the F.I.R. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. According to the police file, the petitioner was not found involved by four Investigating Officers who independently conducted the investigation. The petitioner was held to be involved by the fifth Investigating Officer and the role ascribed to him was that he was present at A the spot and was giving cartridges to his co‑accused for firing. Even if this aspect of the investigation is accepted, yet it would be a case of further inquiry. The Investigating Officer, who held him involved, has not ascribed any overt act qua the deceased or the injured. Presence of the petitioner at the spot is highly doubtful, because he was not mentioned in the F.I.R. nor his presence is established by the earlier investigations. In these circumstances, the petitioner is allowed bail provided he furnishes security in the sum of Rs.30,000 with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate concerned. H.B.T./H‑2/L Bail granted.