' M. Bilal Khan, J.---Master Azmat son of Ali Muhammad, the petitioner, by filing the instant petition, seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,17, dated 27-1-2005, registered at Police Station, Qadirabad, District Mandi Baha-ud-Din for offences under sections 302, 148 and 149 read with section 109, P.P.C.
At the instance of Zakaullah son of Hassan Muhammad, brother of Muhammad Iqbal deceased.
2. The prosecution case as contained in the F.I.R., according to the complainant, was that he was resident of Kauray Karam Shah and was a Zimindar, on the fateful day, about 6-30 p.m., he and his brothers Sanaullah and Muhammad Iqbal were present in their house, when a child knocked at their door and said that Ashraf Burjwala was calling him outside, his brother Muhammad Iqbal got up to answer the call, whereas he and his brother Sanaullah also followed him and came out of the house; as soon as the three brothers got out of their house, they saw Master Azmat (the petitioner), armed with .7-MM rifle, Munawar, armed with .12-bore double barreled gun, Akthar, armed with .12- bore single barreled gun,. Sajid, armed with pistol .30-bore and two unknown persons carrying rifles, standing there; when the said accused persons saw Muhammad Iqbal, Munawar raised a Lalkara that he should not escape and simultaneously fired at him, which missed, therefore, Master Azmat with his .7-MM rifle straight at Muhammad Iqbal hitting him in front of his chest on the left side, who immediately fell down and breathed his last; thereafter rest of the accused person fled from the spot while indulging in firing; on commotion raised by them, Qamar Abbas and Bashir Ahmad also arrived there.
' The move according to the complainant was that Muhammad Ashraf, a brother of Master Azmat (the petitioner) and others had been murdered by some unknown persons for which case F.I.R.
No,377, dated 7-11-2004, under section 302/34, P.P.C. Was registered at Police Station, Qadirabad, in which the complainant had also been nominated; after that the accused persons had off and on been planning to murder them. The complainant further added in the F.I.R. That the accused persons with the connivance of Ijaz Ahmad and Ehsanullah had murdered his brother Muhammad Iqbal. Resultantly, the instant F.I.R. Had been recorded.
3. The petitioner's plea for post-arrest bail did not find favour with the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi Baha-udDin, who turned down his application vide order, dated 26-4-2005. Hence, the instant petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the record brought by Hasnaat Hussain, S.-I.
5. It has been noticed that while granting post-arrest bail to Akhtar Hussain and Muhammad Sajid, co-accused in Criminal Miscellaneous No,3470-B of 2005, the role of the present petitioner had been discussed in detail by this Court in paragraph No,4 of the order dated:. 28-7-2005, which runs as under:--; "After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the record brought by Qaiser Abbas, A.S.-I., it has been straightaway observed that the only role attributed to the petitioners was' that while carrying fire-arms they were present at the scene of occurrence and that after the fatal shot had been fired by their co-accused Master Azmat, which , caused death of Muhammad Iqbal, they decamped from the spot while indulging in athial firing. During the course of examination of the record, it has also been observed that both the petitioners had been found to be innocent in four successive investigations carried out in the case; they had been recommended for discharge by Muhammad Qasim, D.S.P., Phalia and thereafter by Muhammad Afzal V irk, D . S . P.
(headquarters), Mandi Baha-ud-Din. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate did not agree with the discharge report. The record also shows that no recovery of any crime weapon had been effected from the petitioners. Likewise, no empty of .30-bore pistol or .12-bore gun had been recovered from the venue of occurrence. The motive has also not been attributed against the present petitioners. In view of the attending facts and circumstances of the case, vicarious liability of the petitioners under section 149, Cr.P.C. Will be determined at the time of trial. There is no substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant that since the challan had been submitted, therefore, bail may not be granted to the petitioner. It is now well-settled that the mere fact that challan had been submitted in a murder case, will not render the provisions of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Nugatory, if otherwise the petitioners are entitled to the concession of bail."
6. A plain reading of the afore-said paragraph shows that the role attributed to the petitioner is not at par with his co-accused and as such the rule of consistency to the case of the petitioner does not attract. His role is clearly distinguishable from that of his co-accused. Even otherwise, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he had been declared innocent by the police will also not be of much help to the petitioner inasmuch as the complainant as also the prosecution witnesses stand firm on their statements recorded under sections 154 and 161, Cr.P.C.
Respectively. The charge had already been framed on 29-9-2005 and it is well-settled that ipso dixit of the police is not binding on the Courts. A Court seized of a bail application is only supposed to make a tentative assessm ent of the material available on record and is required to scrupulously avoid entering into the realm of deeper appreciation of the said material. Keeping in view all these circumstances, no case for bail is made out and this petition is accordingly dismissed. Bail after arrest declined. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.