' Rasheed Ahmad, Idrees and Ahmad Sher, the petitioners through the instant petition have sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,79, dated 12-3-2002 under sections 302/324/109/34, P.P.C.
Registered with Police Station Saddar Burewala, District Vehari.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that on 12-3-2002 Mst. Umtal Bibi along with her husband Ali Ahmad took her ailing son Sarfraz to city Burewala for his treatment. After getting treatment to him they boarded motorcycle Riksha driven by Liaqat Ali for proceeding towards their house. The said Riksha at about 9 p.m. When reached the metalled road P.I link within the area of 517/EB, Rashid Ahmad with pistol, Idrees with pistol along with an unknown person with pistol were sitting therein ambushed behind the wall. They came out from there. Rashid Ahmad made straight fire with pistol at Ali Ahmad which hit him in front of his chest, who fell down from the Riksha. Idrees made two fires with pistol hitting Sarfraz on his right arm and under the right armpit. The unknown person fired with pistol at her hitting on her right shin. He (unknown person) made another fire hitting Liaqat Ali, Riksha Driver on his back of the chest. Meanwhile, Iftikhar Ahmad, her son and Irshad Ahmad, who were coming to enquire about them also reached there. Iftikhar Ahmad held.
Rashid Ahmad in clasp, who got him released. The accused then ran away therefrom extending threats of life and firing with their weapons in the air. Ali Ahmad succumbed to his injuries at the spot. The occurrence was witnessed by her son Iftikhar Ahmad, Liaqat Ali, Riksha Driver and Irshad Ahmad.
3. The motive behind the occurrence is that the accused had suspicion of illicit relation of Mst.
Abida the maternal-niece of Rashid Ahmad and Idrees with Sarfraz. They on account of grudge over the same in furtherance of their common intention at the instance of accused Ahmad Sher have committed the Qatl-e-Amd of Ali Ahmad deceased and injured her and her son Sarfraz and Liaquat Ali, Riksha Driver.
4. It has been contended on their behalf that they have falsely been roped in and that is why during the investigation they have been found' innocent in the case and the report regarding their discharge from the same was prepared but the same was not agreed to by the learned Illaqa Magistrate;, that the finding of their innocence has rendered them to one of further inquiry into their guilt and in this regard reference has been made to the case of Dr. Muhammad Aslam v. The State 1993 SCM R 2288; Muhammad Shabbir v. The State 1997 PCr.LJ 1570 (Lahore); 'Muhammad Rafique v.
The State 2003 PCr.LJ 1151 (Lahore) and Maqsood Javed v. The State 2001 PCr.LJ 2065 (Lahore) and they are behind the bars and previous non-convicts.
5. On the other hand, the learned A.A.-G. Assisted by Mr. Pervez Akhtar Gujjar, Advocate for the State and the complainant's counsel has opposed the petition on the ground that they are named in the F.I.R. That specific role of causing fire-arm injuries to the deceased as well as to the injured P.Ws.
Has been attributed to at least Rashid Ahmad and Idrees in the F.I.R.; that there is sufficient material on record to connect them with the crime; that the finding of innocence in their favor is not binding upon this Court; and that the offence is not only heinous in nature but also covered under the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr .P.0 .
6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.
7. They (petitioners) in the investigation by Range Crime Branch, Multan were found innocent. The report for their discharge from the case was prepared but the same was not agreed to by the learned Judicial Magistrate on 27-1-200.
8. No doubt the ipsi dixit of the police is not binding upon this Court but the same is a relevant circumstance to be taken into consideration while deciding the question of grant or otherwise of bail.##TE#
9. Due to finding of innocence in their favor by the police and existence of report for their discharge from the case against them, the same has become one of further inquiry into their guilt. Their case, therefore, is covered Under Subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.##TE# In this regard reliance is placed upon the case of Dr. Muhammad Aslam v. The State 1993 SCM R 2288; Muhammad Shabbir v. The State 1997 PCr.LJ 1570 (Lahore); Muhammad Rafique v. The State 2003 PCr.LJ 1151 (Lahore) and Maqsood Javed v. The State 2001 PCr.LJ 2065 (Lahore). They are behind the bars and stated to be previous non-convicts.
10 In these circumstances, 1 find them entitled to bail. The petition, therefore. Is accepted and they are admitted to bail provided they furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Additior4 Sessions Judge, Burewala/trial Court.##TE# ' Crl. Misc. No,287/M of 2003
11. As the main bail petition (Crl. Misc. No,1344/B of 2003) stands decided, hence this Crl. Misc.
No,287/M of 2003 is dismissed as having become infructuous.