1992 P Cr (PLP)

23. It may be mentioned here that the above‑mentioned Ibrahim Khan was a real brother of Imran Khan deceased.

24. The learned counsel for Sardar Khan petitioner submits that the said Ibrahim Khan was in litigation with the complainant and her husband and that the above‑mentioned Ahmad Khan and others used to help the said Ibrahim against his brother Imran Khan deceased and that the said Ibrahim thus being inimical towards the complainant party, could not be relied upon.

25. Adds that Razaullah accused and Ahmad Khan Councillor party above‑mentioned were very influential persons of the area and they had manoeuvred to wipe out the complainant's family by murdering the deceased and then through implicating his son for the said murder.

26. The learned counsel also referred to the application first above mentioned allegedly filed before the Ilaqa Magistrate on behalf of Sardar Khan petitioner and contended that definite efforts were being made to fabricate evidence against Sardar Khan petitioner to ensure that he was sent to the gallows and to further ensure in the process that the real assailants were screened of their liability towards the occurrence in question.

27. According to the theory propounded by the I.O. it is being claimed that Mst. Mehr Khatoon was a professional litigant against whom a number of criminal cases stood registered and that Sardar Khan petitioner who was a driver by profession, used to admonish his said mother and used to advise her to mend her ways and that it was on account of this discussion, that Sardar Khan petitioner had got flared up and had fired a shot at his mother which had instead killed his father.

28. Mst. Mehr Khatoon complainant had mentioned in the F.I.R. that her son Abdul Sattar aged about 14/15 years was the only one present at the Dera besides herself and the deceased at the relevant time.

29. The I.O. however, never took the trouble of interrogating the said Abdul Sattar.

30. It also appears to be a matter of further inquiry where a mother who had been fired at by his son and which fire had resulted in the death of her husband, would spare the son and would instead implicate some other innocent persons in the murder in question.

31. The application above‑mentioned, a photostat copy of which has been produced before this Court and has been placed on record as Exh.P.1, also raises suspicion regarding some invisible hand being at work to put the blame in question on the shoulders of Sardar Khan. The conduct of Zahoor Ahmad Khan, Advocate, who had allegedly been once the advocate creating the evidence of the so‑called confession by Sardar Khan petitioner and who was today opposing the grant of bail of Sardar Khan petitioner also makes the entire affair one of a serious further inquiry.

32. The claim of Malik Munsaf Awan, Advocate, that he had been engaged by one Jahan Khan who was allegedly another son of Imran Khan deceased and who however, was not residing with his father but was living in village Khan Zade Wala and the fact that Malik Munsaf Awan, Advocate, did not possess any power of attorney executed by the said Jahan Khan, is also a factor which is rather intriguing.

33. The facts and circumstances above‑noticed, persuade me to hold that there are no reasonable grounds for believing, at least for the present, that Sardar Khan petitioner had committed the offence in question and that there are in fact sufficient grounds warranting further inquiry into the matter.

34. The position which emerges from the above facts and circumstances is as udder:‑‑ (a) The investigation conducted suggests that it was a son of the deceased who was unhappy with his mother to the extent that he was out to kill her, who had in the process done his father to death; (b) That in spite of the said son being so offensive to his mother, the mother right from the very beginning was persistent in absolving the said son of his responsibility for the murder in question but for the said purpose, she did not have to name the enemies of her deceased husband and which purpose she could have achieved only by stating that the death in question was the result of an accident of that some unknown person had shot her husband to death; (c) That Abdul Sattar, who was a son of the deceased and the complainant and who was the only person besides the complainant and her deceased husband who was present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time, had never been interrogated by the I.O. (d) That Zahoor Ahmad Khan, Advocate, who had allegedly been engaged by Sardar Khan to confess his guilt regarding the murder of his father was today standing in opposition to the said Sardar Khan to ensure the remained behind bars for as long as possible; (e) That Malik Munsaf Awan. Advocate claims to have been engaged by Jahan Khan, another son of the deceased, to oppose the grant of bail to his brother Sardar Khan but the said learned Advocate besides a bald assertion that he had been so engaged and instructed by Jahan Khan, has no power of attorney executed by the said Jahan Khan in his favour; (f) That the I.O. never cared to verify the motive alleged by the complainant which had prompted the nominated assailants to kill the deceased; (g) That the I.O. never probed into the act of Ibrahim's enmity with his deceased brother and the complainant, which enmity would have prompted him to maliciously implicate his nephew in the murder in question, and (h) That the nominated accused persons never appear to have been arrested by the I.O.

35. The above facts and other circumstances compel me to hold that the investigation in the present case, which head left so much unanswered, was far from satisfactory.

36. I would, therefore, direct that some responsible, impartial and independent officer or agency should be entrusted with the investigation of the present case which should preferable be the S.P. of the C.I.A. Staff at Lahore.

37. The agency/I.O. so deputed shall also look into the veracity of the above‑mentioned application allegedly filed by Sardar Khan petitioner through Zahoor Ahmad Khan, Advocate, and to find out whether the same was not a fabrication attempting only at creating evidence to falsely involve Sardar Khan petitioner in the occurrence in question.

38. Mr. Zaeem‑ul‑Farooq Malik, the learned Assistant Advocate‑General shall convey a copy of this order to the Inspector‑General of the Punjab Police for necessary action.

39. It is further directed that the fresh investigation into the matter shall be expeditiously concluded.

40. Although the facts and circumstances of the present case as noticed above, do make out a case for the petitioner's release on bail, yet, I find it appropriate to await the result of the fresh investigation as herein directed.

41. However, in the meantime, the petitioner shall be released on interim bail after arrest subject to his furnishing security in the sum of Rs.25,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Mianwali, Copy Dasti.

42. It is further directed that the petitioner shall be present before this Court in person on every future date fixed for the hearing of this petition.

43. The above‑noticed conduct of Malik Munsaf Awan, Advocate, and of Zahoor Ahmad Khan, Advocate, also, at least prima facie, requires scrutiny.

44. Notices shall issue to both the said learned counsel to show cause why proceedings should not be initiated against them for professional misconduct as also for trying to divert the course of administration of justice by the Courts of law.

45. To come up on 16‑6‑1992. N.H.Q./S‑157/L Interim bail granted.