1986 P Cr (PLP)

2. According to the first information report, petitioners accompanied by Sher Muhammad, their father and Jaffar, their brother, all armed with hatchets, are alleged to have attacked and caused injuries to Mst. Mehar Khatoon, as a result of which she died on the spot.

3. Motive for the occurrence was that the deceased after death of her husband Munawar, who was son of Sher Muhammad co‑accused, had refused to marry Zakir Hussain petitioner, as desired by her father‑in‑law Sher Muhammad.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners have been involved in this case falsely; that during investigation they had taken up the plea of innocence and had produced evidence before the Local Police, as well as before the A.S.P. Sadar, Mianwali, to whom the investigation had been entrusted under the orders of the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Sargodha Range, and the A.S.P. after having thoroughly investigated the case had not only accepted the plea of innocence advanced by the petitioners but had also recommended their names to be placed in column No.

2. Learned counsel submitted that the case was later on investigated by the superintendent of Police, Bhakkar on an application moved by the complainant and the said officer had also agreed with the findings of the A.S.P.

5. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that Inspector/ S.H.0. Police Station, Khushab observed in the case diary, dated 13‑9‑1985 that according to his view the petitioners and Jaffar had nothing to do with the occurrence and that although the evidence of prosecution cannot be thrown away, yet the defence evidence produced, by is also weighty. Learned counsel submitted that it has also been noted the Inspector/ S.H.O. that the complainants had refused to take oath from the accused party.

6. He has cited Amir Ali and others v. The State 1984 S C M R 521 in support of his contention that persons placed in column No. 2 by the Investigating Officers, are generally granted bail.

7. Learned counsel for the State has not controverted the statement of learned counsel for the petitioners about the results of investigation by Inspector/S.H.O. of Police Station Khushab, by the A.S.P., Sadar, Mianwali and by the Superintendent of Police, Bhakkar.

8. The A.S.P. who is in attendance, states that he had recorded statements of quite a few persons in favour of both the petitioners. According to him, a certificate issued by the Incharge Officer of Ghulam Muhammad petitioner, under whom he was serving in Sargodha, was also produce; in support of the alibi that he was in Sargodha on duty at the time, this alleged occurrence is stated to have taken place.

9. I have gone through the first information report and have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties. Although specific parts have been alleged against each of the two petitioners, but the fact remains that the Local Police as well as A.S.P. Sadar, Mianwali and later Superintendent of Police Bhakkar, are all at one in holding that the petitioners had nothing to do with the occurrence. The A.S.P. categorically stated that he had thoroughly investigated the case and apart from having recorded statements of various persons produced by the two petitioners, had also enquired from other persons as well, who also supported the plea of innocence taken by the petitioners.

10. In the authority cited by learned counsel for the petitioners, the bail was granted in similar circumstances. In that case also, the A.S.P. had come to a finding that the petitioners had nothing to do with the offence.

11. Keeping in view all the facts enumerated above and the results of investigation, I feel inclined to grant this petition, as apparently reasonable grounds do not appear of the petitioners having committed the offence. They shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. twenty‑five thousand each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Khushab.

12. However, if on some latter investigation, the petitioners are challenged and their names are placed in column No. 3 of the challan, the State or the complainant will be at liberty to move for cancellation of their bail. S.G.D. Bail allowed.