P L D 1983 Lah (PLP)

The petitioner seeks cancellation of bail granted to the respondent vide order dated 29-3-1983 by Additional Sessions Judge, Okara.

2. The occurrence was stated to have taken place on 15-12-1982 at 1-45 p.m. in Baseer Pur town. The first information report was lodged at Police Station Dipalpur on receipt of statement made by Yasin petitioner to Sub-Inspector/S. H. O. Police Post Baseer Our. Muhammad Anwar deceased was the only injured person. The case was originally registered under section 307/34, P. P. C. The offence was changed to section 302/31, P. P. C. after the death of Muhammad Anwar (deceased) on 14-2-183.

3. According to the first information report the petitioner fired a pistol shot at Muhammad Anwar (deceased) when he was going from his house to his shop. The shot, however, did not bit the deceased. His co-ascused Javed raised a Lalkara, whereupon Muhammad Ali, another co-accused of the respondent fired a shot from 12-bore pistol which hit the deceased on his left flank, arms and back. The occurrence was witnessed in addition to Muhammad Yasin complainant, by Ahmad Ali, Muhammad Ashraf, Muhammad Yar and Amanat Ali. The complainant with the assistance of these persons caught Muhammad Ali at the spot alongwith the pistol, with a loaded empty cartridge. Fatah Muhammad respondent and his co-accused Javed, however, succeeded in escaping. -

4. Motive for the occurrence was that the respondent Fateh Muhammad wanted hand of Mst. Sabiran for his brother Ishfaq, but her brother Zulfiqar Ali fixed her marriage with Muhammad Anwar (deceased), whereupon he felt aggrieved.

5. The respondent was granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge mainly the grounds that no recovery has been effected from him, that the., complainant part was found to have involved the respondent in a chain of criminal cases, that during the- investigation by Ziaul Haq, Sub-Inspector/ S. H. O. some shopkeepers of the locality had appeared in is defence and the S. H. O. after recording the evidence had recommended that his name be placed in column No.

2. The learned Additional Sessions Judy"[so observed that the motive rewires further enquiry.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the investigation, after Ziaul Haq, S. H. O., was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and he did not agree with the findings of the S. H. O. and that the respondent has now been challaned. It has been argued that it is not a case of ineffective firing simpliciter, as in fact the, respondent had fired a shot at the deceased which by chance did not hit him. It is contended that of- elf the accused mentioned in the first information report, only the respondent, had the motive. It has been pointed out that the deceased made statement during investigation alleging that the respondent had introduced him to Muhammad Ali accused a day before the occurrence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited Muhammad Ibrahim v. Rahim Dad and 4 others (1977 P Cr. L J 126) and Muhammad Akram Buttar v. Ijaz Ahmad and another (P L D 1976 Lah. 591).

7. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that it is not denied that the complainant party had lodged quite a few number of F. I. Rs. against the respondent, which shows that the complainants were out to involve the respondent in any case. 1t has been contended that the motive, if any, could have been against Zafar Ali, who had refused to marry his sister with the brother of the respondent. It is submitted that even if it is granted that the D. S. P. had differed with the finding of the S. H. O., the fact remains that one Investigating Officer had found the respondent to be innocent and had recommended that his name be placed in column No.

2. Reliance has been placed on Rehmat v. The State- (1977 P Cr. L J 1069), Muhammad Ashfaq v. State (P L J 1982 Cr. C 235) and Mukhtar Ahmad v. The State (1983 P Cr. L J 641), and an unreported judgment of Hon'ble the Chief Justice in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3994/B of 1979.

8. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. There is no denying the fact that the shot alleged to have been fired by the respondent, according to the prosecution, did not hit the deceased. It is also not denied that one of the Police Officers had during the investigation declared the respondent to be innocent and had recommended that his name be placed in column No.

2. The fact is also not denied that some cases had been got registered by the complainant party against the respondent and that he has not been convicted in any of those cases, so far. The facts. of the case reported in 1977 P Cr. L J 126 are different. In that case the bail was granted to the respondents at the stage when there was no evidence against them. When on further investigation the evidence in the form of judicial confession, identification by the P. Ws. in identification parade and the evidence of trackers was found to have been collected, the bail of the respondents was cancelled. This is not the position in this case. In the present case there is no change in the position which was at the time when the bail was granted to the respondent by the learned lower Court. The facts of the case reported in P L D 1976 Lab. 591 are also different. In that case one of the allegations was that the respondents were using delaying tactics and were not allowing the case to proceed. Yet the other allegation was that the relatives of the accused respondents had threatened the Committing Magistrate several times and had abducted his servants after giving them thrashing. There were some other allegations also, regarding which it was stated that the matter had been brought to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner through the Assistant Commissioner. The learned Judge observed that "It is a serious matter and is being inquired into by the A. C. It weighs heavily against the accused respondent", (there is no such allegation in this case). 9. 1 have also gone through the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondent. In the case reported in 1983 P Cr. L J 641 the petitioner having been charged with ineffective firing was granted bail. In the case decided in Cr. Misc. No. 3994-13/79, the petitioners who were declared to be innocent by one of the Investigating Officers i. e. Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal, were granted bail in spite of the fact that the Superintendent of Police (Crime) had directed that the challan be submitted against them and in spite of the allegation against them that they had caused injuries to the P. Ws. Having gone through the record, authorities cited by the learned counsel for the parties and having considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, I do not feel inclined to interfere in the discretion exercised by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is based on reasons, which find support from the record. There is no merit in this petition. The same is dismissed. M.Y.M. Petition dismissed.