P L D 1994 Peshawar 268 (PLP)

Accused Sultan Mahmood Khan is involved in a murder case in a report lodged by P.W. Tariq Mahmood at Civil Hospital, Haripur on 31‑5‑1993 at 9‑30 a.m. He charged the present accused alongwith Haji Muslim and Mir Afzal for the murder of Jehangir Khan deceased with firing. The event had allegedly taken place at a bus stand situated at a d1stance of half kilometre from the police station. The matter was reported within 30 minutes. Accused Sultan Mahmood Khan after the incident went into hiding. In his absence the investigation was completed alongwith the proceedings under section 87/88, Cr.P.C. and a challan was submitted under section 512, Cr.P.C. After that reinvestigation of the case started on the application of accused Muslim during which the Investigation Officer recommended for the discharge of accused Sultan Mahmood Khan from the case. On this Sultan Mahmood Khan managed to appear before the Investigating Officer and obtained his release on personal bonds. The Ilaqa Mag1strate, however, did not agree with the recommendations of the Investigating Officer and sent the case for trial against the accused. The Sessions Judge, Haripur, on 24‑2‑1994 committed the accused to custody after canceling his bonds but the same Court after a month passed order for the release of the accused on bail on 26‑3‑1994 which is now impugned before me in the instant petition lodged from the complainant side under section 497(5), Cr.P.C.

2. I have heard the learned Advocates on both sides and the Ass1stant Advocate‑General. It has been much argued that police investigation at four stages has recommended on ‑the innocence of the accused because of his false involvement in the case. As it seems, the learned Sessions Judge has been also impressed by these observations while admitting the accused to bail. No doubt during investigation and re‑investigation of this case some opinions have been made by the Investigating Officers on 1‑6‑1993, 11‑8-1993 and 1‑12‑1993 whereby the police officers incharge of the investigation have pleaded for the innocence of the aroused, but as it looks, they have not based their opinions on solid grounds. The same Investigating Officer who opined on the innocence of the accused in Zimni, dated 1‑6‑1993, when the case was at a very initial stage, later on submitted a challan for trial against the accused under section 512, Cr.P.C. whereas the opinion recorded by the police officer on 12‑9‑1993 is of a person against whom the complainant party had moved an application showing their d1strust in him. The conduct of this S.H.O. is to the extent that he did not only release the accused on personal bonds but recommended further to the Illaqa Mag1strate for his discharge from the case.

3. I find on the contrary the name of the accused entered in a very promptly lodged report. He is not only charged by the informant and other eye‑witnesses named in the report for his active presence on the spot and firing pistol shots but the Investigating Officer in support thereof has been able to recover from the venue one pistol empty. The accused remained fugitive from law for quite few months and made himself available before the police only when the case happened to be reinvestigated on the application of a co‑accused and few favourable `Zimnis' were got recorded in his name. He then thought it convenient to submit before the police and obtain his release on personal bonds. Not only this the Investigating Officer forthwith recommended his name for discharge from the case notwithstanding the fact that there appeared grounds for believing that he had been guilty of an offence punishable with f death.

4. In this view of the matter I am not satisfied with the conduct of the investigating agencies and the unchaste haste and anxiety which they have shown in the course of investigation of a murder case like this. It is true that challan has been put in Court and trial has commenced, but in view of what I have found in the conduct of the case so far the police side relates and the manner in which the accused has been able to get his release on bail, I would be constrained to cancel the impugned order by committing the accused to custody. He shall be produced before the learned Sessions Judge on 22‑6‑1994. N.H.Q./1585/P Bail cancelled.