1989 PLP 4375 (MLD)

Salim Ch. for the Complainant. The petitioner Muhammad Amin has applied for post‑arrest bail in a case registered against him vide F.I.R. No.39 dated 25‑1‑1989 under section 330/323/342/201/34, P.P.C. at Police Station City B‑Division Sheikhupura. The allegation against the petitioner is that he alongwith other police officials subjected Muhammad Yusuf and Akbar Ali to terrible torture and consequently the latter died of the injuries. The investigation of this case was conducted by different senior police officers, who came to a definite conclusion that the death of the aforesaid Akbar Ali had taken place due to torture. They also came to the conclusion that after his death the petitioner and others threw his dead body after cutting it into pieces into river Chenab near Rabwah. Accordingly challan under section 302/336/342/201 P.P.C. was submitted but subsequently for reasons best known to the prosecution section 302 P.P.C. was deleted and instead the petitioner was charged under section 304, P.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought bail on the ground that six witnesses have completely exonerated the petitioner while the other two witnesses have also given their sworn affidavits to the same effect. He also has stated that two conflicting versions have been put up which create doubt about the authenticity of this incident. On the contrary the learned Law officer as well as the complainant's counsel opposed the grant of bail. It has been argued that the petitioner has been found fully involved m the murder of Akbar Ali by different investigating agencies. The substitution of section 304, P.P.C. instead of section 302 P.P.C. by the prosecution demonstrates the mala fide attempts to frustrate the case of the complainant. Due to these circumstances the complainant was constrained to file a complaint before the learned Sessions Judge on 23‑4‑1989. It has been argued that only formal witnesses have exonerated the petitioner while the complainant and the injured witness Yusuf are still to be examined. I have considered the arguments of the parties and perused the record. I do not want to dilate upon the stances taken by the parties at this stage lest it may prejudice the case of the either party. But one thing is quite evident that the petitioner stands implicated in the murder of Akbar Ali and this factum has consistently been found correct by different investigating agencies. The trial has already commenced. Keeping all the aforesaid features of the case into consideration, I see no reason to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. His bail petition is dismissed. However, the learned trial judge is directed to expedite the trial of this case. SA./M‑1580/L Bail refused.