' Through this consolidated order, I propose to decide Criminal Miscellaneous No.3007-B of 2004, filed by Dr. Sohail Tariq petitioner and Criminal Miscellaneous No.3037-B of 2004 preferred by Rafique Hussain Shah petitioner together as both these petitioners have sought pre-arrest bail in the same criminal case, i.e. Case F.I.R. No.186 registered at Police Station Satiana, District Faisalabad on 6-4-2004 for offences under sections 324/109/34, P.P.C. Earlier on two separate petitions filed by these petitioners before the Court of Session, Faisalabad seeking the same relief had been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaranwala, District Faisalabad vide consolidated order dated 21-4-2004. Hence, the present petitions before this Court.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that the occurrence in this case had taken place during the dead of a night and the F.I.R. In respect of the alleged incident had been lodged after a delay of about two and a half days.
According to the F.I.R. Itself the culprits perpetrating the alleged offences at the spot had remained unidentified and admittedly the petitioners were not present at the scene of the crime at the relevant time. In the F.I.R. Only an allegation of hatching of a conspiracy and providing behind the scene abetment had been levelled against the present petitioners. It is rather curious to note that despite the fact that the F.I.R. In this case had been lodged with a delay of two and a half days no evidence regarding the alleged conspiracy or abetment by the petitioners had been mentioned in the F.I.R. And the complainant had not even mentioned the day, time or place of hatching of a conspiracy or providing abetment by the petitioners and had not mentioned any witness who could confirm the said allegation against the petitioners. The record of investigation of this case shows that one Sajawal Hussain had produced an affidavit before the Investigating Officer on 16-4-2004, i.e. After ten days of registration of the F.I.R. And in the said affidavit he had maintained that he had overheard the present petitioners conspiring with an unknown young man regarding the murder of Dr. Khalid Mahmood. I have gone through the record of investigation of this case in this respect and have been surprised to learn that no statement of Sajawal Hussain has so far been recorded by the Investigating Officer under section 161, Cr.P.C. And the reproduction of the contents of his affidavit in the relevant case-diary also prima facie appears to be a result of some interpolation and subsequent insertion. In these circumstances the learned counsel for the petitioners have appeared to me to be somewhat justified in maintaining that so far there is no legally admissible evidence available on the record of investigation so as to substantiate the allegation levelled against the present petitioners regarding hatching of a conspiracy and providing abetment. It goes without saying that an allegation contained in an F.I.R. Does not by itself amount to evidence and an affidavit in support of which the deponent has not even made a statement before the Investigating Officer may also not carry any evidentiary value at such a stage.
3. A significant feature of this case is that immediately after the alleged occurrence the injured victim namely Dr. Khalid Mahmood had been medically examined and the Medico-Legal Certificate in respect of the injured victim describes the history of the injured person's injuries as "fire-arm during dacoity". The document appended with Criminal Miscellaneous No.3037-B of 2004 as Annexure-C shows that the' alleged incident has also been reported by the Medical Officer/Incharge, Integrated Rural Health Complex, Satiana, District Faisalabad to the Executive District Officer, Health, Faisalabad on 6-4-2004, i.e., the day on which the present- F.I.R. Had been registered and in the said report submitted by the Medical Officer the incident wherein Dr. Khalid Mahmood had received injuries had been described as a mishap and a case of dacoity. It may, therefore, well be that a case of a dacoity was subsequently utilized by the complainant party for settling their private vendetta against the present petitioners.
4. It is also relevant to mention here that the motive set up in the F.I.R. Is that Rafique Hussain Shah petitioner was agitated against his transfer from the Rural Health Centre, Satiana and because of that frustration the present petitioners had hired the services of some, unknown culprits to do away with Dr. Khalid Mahood. The learnedcounsel for the petitioners have pointed out that the document appended with Criminal Miscellaneous No.3037-B of 2004 as Annexure-D establishes that Rafique Hussain Shah petitioner had been transferred from the Rural Health Centre, Satiana upon his own request made in that regard and the document appended with Criminal Miscellaneous No.3007-B of 2004 as Annexure-E shows that Rafique Hussain Shah petitioner had already joined the transferred place of his posting way back on 11-11-2003, i.e. About five months prior to the present occurrence. Even the documents shown to this Court by the learned counsel for the complainant manifest that Rafique Hussain Shah petitioner had already handed over the charge to his successor at the Rural Health Centre, Satiana in terms of his transfer order and it was being maintained in the said documents that the charge had not been handed over by him fully and some record had still not been handed over by him to his successor. All there factors create an impression in my mind that there was an ongoing bitterness between the parties and in that backdrop the assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding mala fide implication of the petitioners in the case in hand has appeared to me to be an assertion which may not be entirely without any substance or foundation.
5., The Investigating Officer of this case as well as the learned counsel or the State have confirmed before me in union that the petitioners have already joined the investigation, nothing is to be recovered from the petitioners' possession and physical custody of the petitioners is not required at this stage for proper investigation of this case. Both the petitioners are public servants and there is little likelihood of their absconsion in case of their admission to bail by this Court.
6. For what has been discussed above both the above-mentioned petitions are accepted and the ad interim pre-arrest bail already allowed to the petitioners by this Court is confirmed subject to furnishing of fresh bail bonds by the petitioners in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Area Magistrate of Police Station Satiana, District Faisalabad within a period of two weeks from today.
7. Before parting with this order it may be clarified that the observations made in the present order shall be treated as tentative only and the same shall not prejudice the Investigating Officer or the learned trial Court in any manner.