' Kashif, the petitioner through the instant petition has sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,12, dated 12-1-2003 under sections 302/324/148/149, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station, Nankana, District, Sheikhupura.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that on 12-1-2003 at about 8-15 a.m. Mushtaq Ahmad, Kashif, Shaukat and Ghulam Sabir while armed with .12 bore guns in the prosecution of common object of the unlawful assembly formed by them have committed the Qatl-e-Amd of Tassaduq Hussain deceased and attempted on the lives of Munnawar Hussain and Muhammad Yousuf injured persons. Kashif fired with his gun, which hit on the left side of the abdomen of Munnawar Hussain. Ghulam Sabir fired with his gun hitting Munnawar Hussain on his left arm, who fell down.
Shaukat Ali fired with his gun hitting on the forehead of Muhammad Yousuf. Mushtaq fired with his gun, which hit on the front of the chest of Tassaduq Hussain, who fell down and succumbed to his injuries at the spot. It was as a result of conspiracy between Mushtaq Ahmad, Ghulam Bari and Ghulam Qadir.
3. The motive behind the occurrence is long-standing enmity between Tassaduq Hussain deceased and the accused.
4. It has been argued on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in; that in the three successive investigations, he has been found innocent for having no participation in the occurrence in any manner; that no incriminating article was recovered from him; that his co-accused Shaukat Ali, Ghulam Bari and Ghulam Qadir have been found by the police not involved in the matter and if seen from this angle, the major portion of the prosecution story has fallen to the ground and this heavily reflects that the occurrence has not taken place in the manner as mentioned in the F.I.R.
And rather in some other way; and that he is behind the bars and previous non-convict.
5. Conversely, the learned State counsel has opposed the petition on the ground that he is named in the F.I.R. That he has specifically been ascribed fire-arm injury to injured Munnawar Hussain on his left side of the abdomen; that the motive is also ascribed to him; that the opinion of the police is not binding upon this Court; and that the offence does fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.
7. According to the F.I.R. He has fired with .12 bore gun at the injured Munnawar Hussain hitting on the left side of his abdomen.
8. Converse to that he in the investigation conducted by three police officers i,e, S.H.O. Concerned, A.S.P., Nankana Sahib and S.P. (Investigation), Sheikhupura has been found to have caused injury to none and was merely present at the spot empty-handed. This has so been reflected from the case Diary No,34, dated 14-5-2003 recorded by S.P. (Investigation), Sheikhupura. He has concurred with similar finding of A.S.P. Nankana Sahib and S.H.O. Concerned as regards his involvement in the matter.
9. The ipsi dixit of the police though is not binding upon the Court yet it is a relevant circumstance to be taken into consideration while deciding such like question.
10. In view of this position, I find that the question of his participation or involvement in the matter definitely needs further inquiry. The same, therefore. Is amply covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr,P.C. He is behind the bars and stated to be previous non-convict.
11. In these circumstances, I find that the case for his enlargement on bail has been made out. The petition, therefore, is accepted and he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.