1989 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.307, 148 & 149‑‑Bail‑‑Investigating Officer conceded that during investigation police recorded statements of many witnesses who gave different account of occurrence‑‑Counter‑case was also registered under S307, Penal Code against complainant party and investigation was complete‑‑No explanation of two days delay in registration of the case‑‑Case against accused found to be of further inquiry‑‑Accused were allowed bail in circumstances. G.M. Sarwar for Petitioners. Begum Shamsul Qamar for the State. The facts leading to the filing of this petition are that a case under section 307/148/149, P.P.C. was registered against the petitioners and 4 others with Police Station Syed Wala District Sheikhupura, vide F.I.R., dated 23‑8‑1988. The allegations as contained in the F.I.R. are that on 21‑8‑1988 at about 3 p.m. the first informant was going towards his Dhari. When he reached near his Dhari he heard some people quarrelling. When he went ahead he saw Wali Muhammad and Zulfiqar accused quarrelling with his brother Fazil. He tried to intervene whereupon Wali Muhammad called his companions who were hiding in a nearby sugarcane field and 4 accused persons armed differently came there. Zulfiqar petitioner fired with his gun hitting Muhammad Fazil on his forehead and on the left cheek as well as on right arm. Umra petitioner fired hitting on the bladder of Muhammad Fazil injured whereupon he fell down. The fire shot attracted the witnesses to the spot. On this, the accused ran away. Learned counsel for the petitioners that the case against the petitioners is absolutely false contends it. Submits that there is unexplained delay of about 2 days in the registration of the case, as the occurrence took place on 21 8‑1988 at 3 p.m. whereas the F.I.R. was lodged on 23‑8‑1988 at 1‑40 p.m. Submits that during investigation the police recorded the statements of some witnesses who gave a different version, therefore, a case under section 307, P.P.C. has also been registered against the complainant side with regard to the same incident. Submits that in these circumstances the case of the petitioners becomes of further inquiry entitling them to the concession of bail. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition.

2. I have heard learned counsel and perused the record. I verified from the Investigating Officer who submitted that during investigation the police recorded the statements of many witnesses who gave different account of the occurrence, therefore a counter‑case has also been registered against the complainant side and the investigation has been completed. There is no explanation with regard to A the delay in the registration of case. As the police have also registered a counter‑case, I feel the case of the petitioners becomes of further inquiry entitling them to the concession of bail. Therefore, the petitioners are allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 30,000 each, with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Sheikhupura. N.H.Q./Z‑100/L Bail granted.