2005 PLP 399 (MLD)

‑‑‑‑S.497(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/337‑A(i)/337‑A(ii)/337‑F (i)/337‑L(2)/148/149‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑F. I. R. had been lodged with noticeable delay‑‑‑Accused had not caused any injury to deceased‑‑ Allegation levelled against accused in F.I.R. was couched in generalized terms without any specific attribution‑‑‑Accused was not directly connected with motive set up in F.I.R. and nothing had been recovered from his possession during investigation‑‑‑Initial Investigating Officer had recorded opinion that accused was not physically present at the spot at relevant time and had not participated in alleged occurrence, but Deputy Superintendent of Police conducting investigation of case at a subsequent stage, had recorded finding of guilt against accused only on the basis that accused could not establish before him that he was not present at the spot at relevant time‑‑‑Such approach of Deputy Superintendent of police was curious because it appeared that he had arrogated to himself the role of adjudicator and had abandoned role of an Investigator‑‑‑Adjudicator was to decide as to which party had successfully established its case before him whereas it was Investigator's duty to find out the facts and the truth himself rather than requiring parties to establish their rival claims before him‑‑‑Challan had already been submitted after completion of investigation‑‑‑Continued custody of accused in jail was not likely to serve any beneficial purpose at bail stage‑‑‑Case against accused calling for further inquiry into his guilt within purview of subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C., he was admitted to bail. Hasnat Ahmed Khan for Petitioner. Khawaja Mazhar Ali for the State. Date of hearing: 11th June, 2004. Through this petition Muhammad Saleem petitioner has sought post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.38 registered at Police Station Sadar, Gojra, District Toba Tek Singh on, 7‑2‑2004 for offences under sections 148/302/149, P.P.C. During the investigation sections 337‑A(i), 337‑A(ii), 337‑F(i) and 337‑L(2), P.P.C. were added to the F.I.R.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that the F.I.R. in this case had been lodged with a noticeable delay. Admittedly the petitioner had not caused any injury to, Muhammad Arshad deceased. The allegation levelled against the petitioner in the F.I.R. is that he had, collectively with his co‑accused, caused unspecified injuries to Muhammad Afzal P.W. The allegation levelled against the petitioner in the F.I.R. is couched in generalized terms without any specific attribution. Apparently the petitioner was not directly connected with the motive setup in the F.I.R. It is not disputed that nothing had been recovered from the petitioner's possession during the investigation of this case. The record of investigation of this case shows that the initial Investigating Officer had recorded a categories opinion that the petitioner was not physically present at the, spot at the relevant time and he had not participated in the alleged occurrence. However, a Deputy Superintendent of Police conducting investigation of this case at a subsequently stage had recorded his finding of guilt vis‑a‑vis the petitioner only on the basis that the petitioner could not establish before him that he was not present at the spot at the relevant time. Such approach of the Deputy Superintendent of Police has been found by me to be rather curious because it appears that he had arrogated to himself the role of an adjudicator and had abandoned the role of an investigator. It is for an adjudicator to decide as to which partv has successfully established its case before him whereas it is an investigator's duty to find out the facts and the truth himself rather than requiring the parties to establish their rival claims before him. The, challan in this case has already been submitted after completion of investigation and, thus, continued custody of the petitioner in jail is not likely to serve any beneficial purpose at this stage.

3. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./M‑661/L Bail granted.