2017 P Cr (PLP)

SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.

Liaqat Ali Khan, the complainant of FIR No.332/2015, dated 31.05.2015, under sections 302, 337-D, 337-A(ii), 337-F(iii), 337-H(2), 114, 324, 109, 427, 148, 149, P.P.C. read with section 7/21(i), 21-L a the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, Police Station Sadar Kamoke, Gujranwala has alleged that his phuphizad Ch. Shamshad Ahmad Khan, M.P.A along with his son Shahbaz Ahmad Khan, nephew Ali Wakeel Khan, a friend Sheikh Mahmood Ahmad Shakir and his servant Aamir moved toward his residential house, while aboard a land-cruiser jeep, whereas, he (complainant) along with his companions, Muhammad Ashfaq, Nasir Mahmood and Riasat Ali followed them in another land-cruiser; they found a black coloured car parked across the passage, therefore, both the vehicles stopped there; suddenly four unknown rifle-holders stepped down from the said car and surrounded the vehicle of Shamshad Ahmad Khan MPA; they opened indiscriminate firing at it for quite a while and sped away their vehicle after they boarded it again; he (complainant) and his companions drew closer to the hit land-cruiser and found Shamshad Ahmad Khan MPA, his son Shahbaz Ahmad Khan and his friend Mahmood Ahmad Shakir, his nephew Ali Wakeel and servant Muhammad Aamir having been hit by the firing of the accused; Shahmshad Ahmad Khan, Shahbaz Ahmad Khan and Mahmood Ahmad Shakir had succumbed to the injuries, whereas, Ali Wakeel and Muhammad Aamir were alive but badly wounded; the vehicle was badly damaged in the attack; the injured were shifted to Civil Hospital Kamonke for their treatment; the motive behind the occurrence pertained to previous political rivalry between the parties, beside another dispute regarding some agricultural land situated close to the college road.

2. Mahboob Ali and Sadaqat Ali, not cited as witnesses in the FIR, joined investigation, the same day (31.05.2015) to render statements under section 161, Cr.P.C., whereby, they showed their presence at Madni hotel at the relevant time of the alleged occurrence, where they had their eyes focused at a gold coloured car, parked nearby them, which was occupied by Awaiz Tariq, Shahbaz Ahmad, Sabir alias Saifullah, who were repeatedly visited by two motorcyclistis, named Abdul Waheed and Abu Bakar (petitioner), who would briefly talk to them and leave immediately, in the meantime both the witnesses heard report of incessant firing, whereafter, the said motorcyclists came in contact again with the car-riders and said to them something, whereon they raised lalkaras and made aerial firing. Both the motorcyclists kept a surveillance during the occurrence alleged.

3. The petitioner was initially arrested on 02.07.2015 and his test identification parade took place on 31.07.2015, during the course of which both Sadaqat Ali and Mahboob Ali correctly picked him up, with the contention that he had made firing at the place of occurrence. He was formally arrested by the police on 10.08.2015 and he allegedly got recovered a kalashnikov on 19.08.2015. The investigating officer collected 230 spent bullets of Kalashnikov from both the places i.e., the place of occurrence and the other place situated close to the Madni hotel. The kalashnikov of the petitioner was found wedded with some of the crime-empties by the Ballistic Expert.

4. One Naveed Asghar was arrested by the police under section 54, Cr.P.C. on 15.06.2015, who made certain disclosures regarding the occurrence, which led to the nomination and involvement of Tariq, Zafarullah and Naqi Hassan, beside Naveed Asghar himself, as the persons to have effectively fired at the deceased and the injured.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that allegation-wise, the petitioner's case assimilated with that of Waheed Ullah alias Kalo, who had been granted post arrest bail by this court vide order dated 29.09.2016 passed in Crl. Misc. No. 9281-B/2016. There is, however, a distinguishing circumstance that related to his test identification parade, held on 31.07.2015 during the course of which he was correctly picked-up by Sadaqat Ali and Mahboob Ali, the witnesses who in their earlier statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. burdened him with the liability of keeping the adversaries under surveillance at the relevant time of the occurrence, but they stated it otherwise, when they test identified him by contending that he, too, had made firing at the vehicle of the deceased at the crucial hour. This dissent in their assertions caused eyebrow-raising, as both the statements, allegation-wise, fell miles apart inter se. So far as the alleged firing by the car-riders near Madni hotel is concerned, it was in the air and the one made at the place of occurrence was directly aimed at the riders of black coloured car.

6. Waheed Ullah alias Kalo, as mentioned above has already been granted post arrest bail by this court on 29.09.2016 and there could hardly be chosen anything between him and the petitioner in terms of nature of the allegation. The petitioner had already been named in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. by Sadaqat Ali and Mahboob Ali, recorded on 31.05.2015, hence, his test identification on 31.07.2015 by the said witnesses, appeared to be an overdoing on the part of the police. Even in their earlier statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. Sadaqat Ali and Mahboob Ali did not level any allegation of firing against the petitioner and the pillion rider, hence, true import of the positive report of the PFSA, in relation to kalashanikov, allggedly got recovered by the petitioner would be better adjudged by the learned trial court during the course of the trial. According to the prosecution case, both Mahboob Ali and Sadaqat Ali well knew the accused/petitioner and the other motorcyclist Waheed Ullah alias Kalo, as well as four riders of gold coloured car prior to the occurence, still none of them could be nominated in the FIR by Liaqat Ali Khan (complainant), who reported the matter about three quarter of an hour thereafter. The petitioner has been in jail since 02.07.2015 and he is no more needed by the police for the purpose of any recovery etc. Keeping him continuously behind the bars would serve no useful purpose. Even otherwise his case called for further probe into his guilt within the scope of section 497(2), Cr.P.C.

7. Therefore, this application is accepted and petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court. WA/A-22/L Bail granted.