2000 PLP 95 (MLD)

Heard. The accused respondents Nos.l to 6 stand charged under sections 302/148/149, P.P.C. vide F.I.R. No.211, dated 10‑10‑1996 registered at Police Station Sadar Sangla Hill District Sheikhupura.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that on 10‑10‑1996, Muhammad Rafique complainant alongwith his son Abdul Hameed was sitting in their Havaili while his son Zulfiqar Ali alias Bhola who had returned from Saudi Arabia, was coming from the house of Shahbaz son of Ishfaq Ahmad alongwith his brother Muhammad Javed and one Muhammad Afzal son of Hakim Ali. In the meanwhile, Muhammad Tariq son of Nazir Ahmad armed with a kalashnikov, Basharat Ali, Nadeem and Maqbool Ahmad armed with rifles, Nazir Ahmad armed with a 12 bore gun, Muhammad Arshad armed with a rifle and Tanvir Ahmad armed with a carbine, having ambushed themselves in the Havaili of Maqbool Ahmad, suddenly appeared. Nazir Ahmad raised a Lalkara that Zulfiqar Ali alias Bhola be done to death. On hearing his Lalkara, the complainant and Abdul Hameed came out of the Havaili and within their view, Muhammad Tariq fired with his kalashnikov which hit Zulfiqar Ali on the left side of his chest. The other assailants also fired with their respective weapons hitting different parts of Zulfiqar Ali who succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The complainant being empty handed could not come to the rescue of the deceased. On hearing the fire shots, residents of the locality collectea on the spot. Seeing them coming, the accused ran away. Leaving the dead body on the spot, the complainant made for the police station and lodged a report.

3. The respondents applied for bail after arrest which request was acceded by the lower Court vide order dated 18‑2‑1997. The compliamant/petitioner has felt aggrieved of the said order and has filed the instant petition for the cancellation of the said order.

4. Arguments have been heard and record perused.

5. Contention of learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner is that all the accused/respondent have been specifically named in the F.I.R. and a specific part has been assigned to each of them, that the Trial Court has released the respondents on bail on the ground that they have been found innocent by the Investigating Officer which opinion is not binding on the Court as held by the superior Courts. He, thus, submits that the Trial Court was not justified in extending concession of bail to the respondents and the said order be recalled.

6. On the other hand, the impugned order has supported by the learned counsel for the respondents. He further contended that as a result of post‑mortem examination of Zulfiqar Ali deceased, as many as 23 injuries have been found on his person, that out of which 10 injuries have been found to have been caused by blunt weapon, that presence of blunt injuries on the person of the deceased clearly belies the prosecution story which reveals that the deceased was caused only fire‑arm injuries, that no weapon of offence has been recovered from any of the respondents, that as a result of investigation conducted by local police and verified by D.S.P. Circle, the respondents have been found innocent and that all these facts were taken into consideration by the lower Court while passing the impugned order which does not, call for any interference. He, thus, submits that there is no force in the petition and the same be dismissed.

7. A perusal of the F.I.R. shows that the respondents have been assigned al specific role in the commission of this offence and each of them has been shown to be armed with a fire‑arm. However, post‑mortem examination report shows' that out of 23 injuries sustained by him, as many as 10 injuries had been caused by blunt weapon. The presence of injuries with blunt weapon makes the prosecution story highly incredible as none of the assailants has been assigned any injury with blunt weapon. It is also fact that the respondents have been found innocent as a result of investigation conducted by local police and verified subsequently by D.S.P. Circle. There is no doubt that Courts are not bound to accept opinion of, the Investigating Officer but facts of each and every case have to be kept in mind while taking into consideration the opinion of the Investigating Officer. In the instant case, post‑mortem examination report makes the prosecution case highly doubtful as such the opinion of the Investigating Officer declaring the respondents innocent cannot be brushed aside lightly.

8. In the light of the facts stated above, we are of the considered view that the lower Court has extended the concession of bail to the respondents in accordance with law and the said order does not call for any interference. Consequently, the petition fails and is dismissed. H.B.T./M:821/L Petition dismissed.