1998 P Cr (PLP)

Gohar Zaman Kundi for the Complainant. Date of hearing; 17th March, 1997. After being unsuccessfully to get himself released on bail, the petitioner has come up to this Court for the same relief.

2. The prosecution case is that on the eventful day when the complainant alongwith his brother Irshad Khan and relative Asmatullah were on their way home when they saw the accused named in the F.I.R. standing near the house of Inayatullah. On the direction of Muhammad Nawaz accused, Rehman and Inayatullah fired due to which he was hit on right leg whereafter they decamped from the spot. Motive was stated to be their enmity with, Muzafar Khan.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that co-accused attributed similar role has been admitted to bail while another co‑accused Inayatullah equally charged has since been released by the police under section 169, Cr.P.C. by accepting his plea of alibi after examining so many witnesses. He argued that case of all the three accused charged in the report as hire‑assassination have been thoroughly examined by the Investigating Officer. There is only one entry wound on the person of the victim. He urged that one Muzaffar Khan equally charged was not made as an accused and the petitioner is behind the bars for more than two years, but even his challan has not been put in Court, despite the orders of this Court, dated 5‑10‑1996.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that three different investigations have been conducted in the case, in first two of which Inayatullah accused was held guilty but in the third one was declared innocent by the C.I.A. police and the petitioners do not derive benefit therefrom. He argued that last investigation of the case mala fidely entrusted to the C.I.A. police to get investigation conducted by a man of their choice. The eye‑witnesses fully support the prosecution version. He opposed the bail due to permanent imputation of an organ of the complainant, besides that the prohibitory clause is attracted to the case.

5. The learned State Counsel adopted the arguments advanced by the complainant's counsel.

6. Arguments on either sides considered minutely and the record reveals that the petitioner and Inayatullah accused were equally charged for effective firing at the complainant. There is only one entrance wound on the victim which could not be attributed to anyone specifically. Besides, co‑accused Inayatullah has been released by the police under section 169, Cr.P.C. and when an accused of similar role has been discharged by the police, obviously it creates doubt to the extent of petitioner as well. No doubt opinion of the Investigating Officer is not binding on the Courts, but such opinion could be given weight in reference to other factors of the case. When the charge of hire‑assassinator against Inayatullah was not believed by the Investigating Officer the case of the petitioner also falls within the ambit of further inquiry who too was assigned identical role.

7. Resultantly, this application is accepted and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail provided he furnishes bail bond in a sum of Rs.one lac with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./2138/P Bail application accepted.