1986 PLP 2833 (MLD)

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 17‑6‑1985 at 7‑30 a.m., Ghulam Farid, Mehram, Mst. Jannat and Muhammad lqbal complainant left their village for Vehari. When they reached the 'Bhaini' of Muhammad Hanif Arain, Muhammad Ramzan son of Shahamand armed with Chhuri, Allah Bakhsh, Allah Ditta. Gehna, Qutba and the present petitioners, all armed with Sotas, opened an attack. Sultan and Ramzan petitioners and Gehna and Qutba co‑accused gave Sota blows to Mehram who fell on the ground unconscious. Allah Bakhsh, Allah Ditta and Bahadar petitioner then inflicted Sota blows on Ghulam Farid who, too, fell on the ground. Thereafter, they held him by his legs and arms and Ramzan son of Shahamand chopped off his nose and tongue and gave injuries to his eyes with Chhuri. Ghulam Farid succumbed to the injuries and died on the spot. Later in the day, at 11‑30 a.m., Mehram also died in the hospital. Motive alleged in the F.I.R. is that a month prior to the occurrence, Mst. Jannat sister of Ramzan son of Shahamand accused had eloped with Ghulam Farid deceased but was subsequently restored through Punchait. To avenge this insult, the accused murdered Ghulam Farid and injured Mehram.

3. All the accused were arrested and usual investigations were held. Evidence was produced before Saadullah S.H.O. during the investigation conducted by him that the present petitioners and their co‑accused Allah Ditta and Qutba were innocent. S.H.O., however, gave no definite opinion as the complainant party did not appear before him. Rao Shaker Ali, D.S.P. then investigated the case and gave an opinion that Qutba accused was innocent. All the accused were, however, challaned. After submission of the challan, investigation was transferred to the Crimes Branch. Saleh Muhammad, Inspector, Crimes Branch, conducted the necessary investigation and formed an opinion that only Ramzan son of Shahamand, Allah Bakhsh and Gehna accused had participated in the occurrence and were guilty whereas the remaining accused including the present petitioners were innocent.

4. Petitioners filed a bail petition in the Sessions Court on the ground that they were found innocent by the Inspector of the Crimes Branch. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari dismissed the bail petition on the ground that the victims received as many as 13 injuries and the occurrence which had taken place at 7-30 a.m. on a public way, had been supported by the eye‑witnesses named in the F.I.R Hence, the present petition.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned counsel for the State. I have also been taken through the relevant papers regarding the investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioners presses the prayer for bail mainly on the ground that the petitioners have been found innocent in the investigation held by the Crimes Branch and, as such, their case was one of further inquiry. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that the Inspector of Crimes Branch based his opinion regarding the innocence of the petitioners on the statements of the respectables of the locality such as M.P.A., District Councillors, Chairman of the Union Council. Ulema and Imam of the 'mosque as' also on the statement of Bashir Ahmad, the real brother of Ghulam Farid deceased. Learned counsel argues that the opinion given by the Inspector was based on sound material and it: can well be taken into consideration for the purpose of bail and that it makes the prosecution case qua the petitioners one of further inquiry entitling them, to the grant of bail. In support of this submission, learned counsel relies on 1984 S C M R 429 wherein it was observed that the relevancy .of the opinion of the Investigating Agency in the matter of bail "will depend on the soundness of the material upon which it is based. If the investigation brings to light facts which may furnish prima facie a reasonable ground for believing, that an accused though named in the F.I.R. is not guilty, the opinion of the Investigating' Officer based on such facts will be relevant." In that case, opinion of the police officers regarding the innocence of the two accused was based on the statements of some respectable persons such as an. Imam of the local mosque and Vice‑Chairman of the Union Council, and it was held that such an opinion could be taken into consideration for the purpose of bail. Learned counsel has also referred to another case appearing at‑page 521 of the same Report where the A.S.P. who investigated the case had found after examining a large number of witnesses in the village that the three petitioners, therein were, not present at the spot. Bail, was granted by their Lordships of the Supreme Court holding that "We feel that in this case the view expressed by the A.S. P. that the petitioners were not resent at the spot, is based on sufficient material. As such, we are of the view that in this case the benefit of doubt arising from the A.S.P's. report must go to the petitioners even at the bail stage". Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that Qutba co‑accused who was found innocent by Rao Shaker Ali D.S.P. was released on bail on that ground alone by the learned Sessions Judge.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the petitioners' prayer for bail by submitting that they have been named in the F.I.R. and definite role has been attributed to them of causing injuries to the two deceased and the occurrence which took place in the broad day‑light has been fully supported by the eye‑witnesses. He has referred to 1977 S C M R 27 which has also been relied upon by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments addressed at the bar Law is well‑settled that the opinion of an Investigating Officer regarding the innocence of accused person based on sound and sufficient material is a relevant circumstance which can well be taken into consideration for the purpose of bail and benefit thereof, as observed in 1984 S C M R 521, must go to the accused even at the bail stage. Now, in the present case, it is not disputed that the finding of the Inspector of the Crimes Branch regarding the innocence of the present petitioners was based on the statements of the notable persons mentioned hereinabove and what is more important is that even a real brother of Ghulam Farid deceased also appeared before the Inspector and stated about the petitioners' innocence. Thus, the opinion formed by the Inspector cannot be ruled out altogether just because it was a case of broad day‑light occurrence which was supported by the eye‑witnesses named in the F.I.R. The opinion of the Investigating officer based as it is on sound and sufficient material particularly the statement of brother of one of the deceased has to be given some weight at least for the purpose of bail in so far it does tend to make the case against the petitioners one of further inquiry: As regards the case reported as 1977 S C M R 27 relied upon by the learned counsel for the State suffice it to observe that the findings of innocence of the accused recorded by the C. I. A. Staff in the subsequent investigation was not considered as 'a valid ground for releasing the accused an hail for the reason, inter alia, that the four eye-witnesses in that case had received fire‑arm injuries and they had fully implicated the accused not only in their police statements but also before the Enquiry Magistrate: In the instant case, none, of the eye‑witnesses is said to have received any injury. Thus, the case Cited by the learned counsel for the State is not of much help to him.

8. For what has been stated above and in the aforesaid view of the matter, this petition is allowed and the petitioners are admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 (rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar/Additional Registrar of this Court: S.A. Bail granted.