2005 PLP 3222 (YLR)

IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.

Learned counsel for the petitioners does not press this petition to the extent of Zafar Iqbal petitioner No.1 and only argues the same on behalf of Muhammad Ashraf petitioner No.2, who seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.270 of 2004, dated 11-8-2004 registered under section 302/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Tibba Sultanpur District Vehari on the statement of Muhammad Yasin.

2. Briefly the facts narrated in the F.I.R. are that the complainant along with his brother Muhammad Javed Shahzad was present in front of his house when suddenly Zafar Iqbal armed with pistol .30 bore, Muhammad Ashraf petitioner No.2 armed with pistol and Muhammad Saeed co-accused armed with gun .12 bore came there and started firing. The fire shot of Zafar Iqbal hit the deceased in front of his abdomen while the second shot of petitioner No.2 Muhammad Ashraf hit the deceased at his right flank. The third shot fired by Muhammad Saeed co-accused passed over the deceased, who fell down. On the hue and cry of the injured the witnesses attracted to the spot and saw the occurrence while the accused succeeded in running away from the spot along with their respective weapons. Thereafter, the injured Javed Shahzad was taken to the Rural Health Centre and then shifted to Nishtar Hospital, Multan where he died. Hence the present case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Injury No.2 allegedly attributed to Muhammad Ashraf is an exit wound and as such the ocular account is in conflict with the medical evidence; that during the investigation the story narrated by the complainant has been declared false and it has been found that only Muhammad Saeed co-accused had fired at the deceased, and that the case of the petitioner is that of further inquiry who has also been declared innocent during the investigation.

4. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant assisted by the learned counsel for the State has opposed this application on the ground that petitioner No.2 has specifically been nominated in the F.I.R. and deeper merits of the case cannot be considered at bail stage nor opinion of the police is binding on the Courts.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. It is not denied that injury No.2 allegedly attributed to Muhammad Ashraf petitioner No.2 according to the medical evidence is an exit wound. He has also been declared innocent by the police during the investigation and nothing was recovered from him during the investigation. No doubt the police opinion is not binding on the Courts, yet in the present case the same to the extent , of Muhammad Ashraf petitioner appears to be on sound reasoning and can be considered for grant of bail. A Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case whether Muhammad Ashraf had participated in the occurrence is a question of further inquiry and his case falls within the purview of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Hence Muhammad Ashraf Petitioner No.2 is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. One lac with two sureties each In the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. However, this application to the extent of Zafar Iqbal petitioner No.1 is dismissed as not pressed. H.B.T./Z-123/L Order accordingly.