2003 P Cr (PLP)

3. As both the petitions have arisen out one of the same case, hence are being disposed of by this single order.

4. Briefly the facts of the case as contained in the F.I.R. are that on 10‑3‑2001 at about 10‑00 p.m. complainant Abdul Ghaffar in his Jeep No.7484/MNH from his cattle shed was going to Chak No. 87/12‑L. When he reached near the house of Razzaq in the Chowk of the bazar at Pulli, he found Shehzad armed with 444 bore rifle, Muhammad Hanif alias Hanifi with 12 bore double‑barrel gun and Muhammad Saleem alias Pasha with rifle were standing. He stopped his Jeep, on seeing them and came out of his Jeep. In the meanwhile, they. all three (accused) made in discriminate firing upon him. He saved himself taking the shelter behind wall. He in his self‑defence had also fired with 12 bore gun in the air. On the report of fire, Qadir Bakhsh, who in relation is paternal‑grandfather to him came in the Bazar. Muhammad Hanif alias Hanifi fired two straight shots on him with his gun hitting him on his left arm and left calf of the leg (Pindli). In the meanwhile, Shafaqat Ali, his co‑villager also came out of his house. He too was injured by the firing of the accused. The fire had hit him his eighth rib. On his (complainant) noise Abdul Manaf, Muhammad Irshad and other villagers were attracted to the spot. On seeing whom, the accused fled away. 4‑A. The motive behind the occurrence is that murder case between the parties is pending in the Court. On account of grudge over the same, the accused had committed his Qatl‑e‑Amd.

5. The bail has been sought by them on the ground that they have falsely been roped in by the complainant Abdul Ghaffar with mala fide intention as he (complainant) ‑is accused in the murder case of the father of the petitioner Muhammad Hanif; that they have nothing to do with the alleged offence; that in fact the complainant Abdul Ghaffar had fired at Muhammad Anwar, an eye‑witness in the aforesaid murder case of father of Muhammad Hanif, but luckily he was saved and the fire had hit Shafaqat Ali. that the complainant had caused injuries to his relative Qadir Bakhsh and had manoeuvred a false medical report in that regard and on the basis of the same, have implicated them in the instant case: that during investigation by two higher Police Officers of the rank of S.P. Crimes Branch and A.S.P., Chichawatni, they have been found innocent and in fact the complainant Abdul Ghaffar to be the real culprit: that Abdul Ghaffar had applied for pre‑arrest bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chichawatni, but his application was dismissed therefrom and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has clearly mentioned in his order that he had made fire which had hit to injured in the case; that these facts make, their case as one of further inquiry; that they are behind the bars for the last many months; that the petitioner Muhammad Hanif is student; and that they are previous non convict.

6. The learned State Counsel has not seriously opposed the application. However, the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the case. According to him the petitioners are named in the F.I.R. with specific allegation of firing as a result whereof, two P.Ws. namely Qadir Bakhsh and Shafaqat Ali were injured; and that in one investigation, they were found to be the culprits. .

7. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by both the sides with the help of available record.

8. It has been borne out from the police record that the petitioners have been found innocent in‑the investigation. by S.P. Range Crimes. Multan as well as present A.S.‑I./S.D.P.O., Chichawatni. They had found the complainant Abdul Ghaffar to be in fact the real culprit. It has also been borne out from the copy of the order, dated 22‑6‑2002 recorded by Mr. Zafar lqbal Chaudhary, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chichawatni on the pre‑arrest bail application of the Abdul Ghaffar complainant in the instant case that he has declined him the said relief in this case observing:‑‑ "The perusal of the record denotes that the present petitioner has subsequently been found by the police to be the actual culprit of this case as he has made fire shot which hit the injured of this case. This case was duly investigated by the police and the police after due investigation, has lately held guilty to the petitioner as it is obvious and manifest from Case Diary No.67, dated 7‑3‑2002 recorded by Doctor Moeen Masood, A.S.P., Chichawatni. The recovery of weapon of offence in the shape of fire‑arm is to be effected at the instance and behest of the petitioner. There is nothing convincing and cogent on record to connote that the petitioner has falsely been implicated and entangled in this case, thus, the petitioner is not entitled to extraordinary concession of pre‑arrest bail. The petitioner is involved in a heinous and grave crime falling under prohibitory clause. No deeper appreciation of evidence at bail stage is the spirit of law and justice. The petitioner is playing hide and seek with the police as well as with the Court. Due to non‑appearance of the petitioner in Court, he does not deserve for any leniency. In these circumstances and as observed hereinbefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of pre‑arrest bail, hence, this bail application is dismissed."

9. Now the above position shows that there is drastic change in the circumstances/position of the case. The complainant has become an accused in the same and the petitioners have been found to be not evolved in the matter.

10. In view of the position, particularly the finding of the aforesaid two higher Police Officers in their favour, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that they have committed non‑bailable offence and there is either ground for further inquiry into their guilt, so their case is amply covered by the mischief of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. They are behind the bars for the last many months. Out of them one (Muhammad Hanif) is stated to be student. And they all are stated to be previous non‑convicts.

11. In this view of the matter, the case for their enlargement on bail has been made out.

12. Resultantly, the two applications mentioned above are accepted and they are admitted to bail provided they furnish bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Illaqa Magistrate. S.M.A.H./M‑1467/L Bail granted.