' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.-- Through this petition. Muhammad Imran petitioner, a real brother of Muhammad Bilal deceased and an eye-witness in this criminal case, has sought cancellation of post-arrest to respondents Nos.1 and 2 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur through orders dated 6-1-2006 and 25-2-2006 respectively in case F.I.R No,188 registered at Police Station B-Division, Kasur on 14-5-2005 in respect of an offence under section 302, P.P.C. Read with section 34, P.P.C. It may be relevant to mention here that initially the complainant of this case namely Wali Muhammad, the father of Muhammad Bilal deceased and Muhammad Imran petitioner, had filed Criminal Miscellaneous No,973-CB of 2006 before this Court soon alter admission of respondents Nos.1 and 2 to post-arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur through the above mentioned orders and had sought cancellation of respondents. Nos.1 and 2's bail but during the pendency of that petition Wali Muhammad complainant died and as an aftermath of that development the present petition has been filed before this Court by Muhammad Imran petitioner seeking the same relief which had been sought by Wali Muhammad complainant through the above mentioned earlier petition.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and have gone through the record of this case with their assistance. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that sufficient incriminatory material was available on record prima facie establishing involvement of respondents. Nos.1 and 2 in the murder in issue and, thus, the learned Additional Sessions Judge Kasur was not justified in admitting the said respondents to bail. He has further argued that while admitting respondents Nos.1 and 2 to bail the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur had been heavily influenced by the opinions expressed by some police officers in this case which opinions were legally irrelevant besides being tainted with mala fide. It has been maintained by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the opinions of different police officers relied upon by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur had been imported in this case after submission of a Challan before the learned trial Court and the said opinions had been procured by the accused party through extraneous political influence. He has gone on to point out that both respondents Nos.1 and 2 had been declared Proclaimed. Offenders in the case in hand and, thus, they were disentitled to an exercise of discretion in their favour in the matter of bail but this aspect of the matter had been completely overlooked by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur while admitting the said respondents to bail. It has finally been submitted by him that after their admission to bail respondents Nos.1 and 2 and their supporters have been extending threats to the complainant party and thus, respondents Nos.1 and 2 are not entitled to continued enjoyment of the concession of bail. As against that the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 have pointed out that an Inspector of Police, a Deputy Superintendent of Police, an Assistant Superintendent of Police and then a panel of three police officers investigating this case had successively found respondents Nos.1 and 2 to be innocent and that no weapon had been recovered from their possession during the investigation of this case. They have laid great emphasis on the fact that according to the prosecution's own case a tonga driver was present at the scene of crime and during the investigation the said tonga driver had completely absolved respondents Nos.1 and 2 of any responsibility qua the murder of Muhammad Bilal deceased. They have also highlighted that, in response to a questionnaire prepared by an investigating officer of this case Wali Muhammad complainant and Muhammad Imran petitioner, both eye-witnesses of the alleged occurrence, had maintained before t'he investigating officer that respondents Nos.1 and 2 had been implicated in this case by them on account of inadvertence and on the basis of some misunderstanding. It has, thus, been maintained by them that the case against respondents Nos.1 and 2 called for further inquiry into their guilt and, thus, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur was quite justified in admitting them to bail. The learned counsel for the State has maintained that respondents Nos.1 and 2 had been opined by successive investigating officers to be innocent and, thus, she is not in any position to maintain that the said respondents were not entitled to be admitted to bail.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of this case with their assistance I have observed that the F.I.R in this case had been lodged with reasonable promptitude and both respondents Nos.1 and 2 had been specifically nominated therein as the perpetrators of the alleged murder. According to the F.I.R respondent No,1 had caused a firearm injury on the left side of the chest of Muhammad Bilal deceased and respondent No,2 had also resorted to firing at Muhammad Bilal deceased causing injuries on his chest. It is not disputed that the eye-witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R have so far stood by their statements made before the police fully implicating respondents Nos.1 and 2 in the murder in B question and prima facie the medical evidence lends support to the allegations levelled against the said respondents in the F.I.R.
Apparently respondent No,1 was directly connected with the motive set up in the F.I.R and respondent No,2 happened to be his associate. While admitting respondents Nos.1 and 2 to bail the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur had completely overlooked the fact that respondent No,1, after his initial arrest in connection with this case, had escaped from police custody on 21-6-2001 whereafter an F.I.R had been registered in that regard and resultantly he was declared a Proclaimed Offender and proceedings under sections 87/88, Cr.P.C. Had been undertaken in that respect. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur had also B failed to consider that at the time of submission of the Challan in this case both respondents Nos.1 and 2 were Proclaimed Offenders and, thus, on account of the conduct displayed by them in this respect they had disentitled themselves to an exercise of discretion in their favour in the matter of bail. I have found it to be rather intriguing as to why such an important aspect of this case had been completely ignored by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur at the time of admitting respondents Nos.1 and 2 to bail.
4. The orders passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur on 6-1-2006 and 25-1-2006 whereby respondents Nos.1 and 2 were admitted to bail respectively show that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur had been heavily influenced by the considerations that while responding to a questionnaire prepared by an investigating officer Wali Muhammad complainant and Muhammad Imran petitioner, both eye-witnesses of the alleged occurrence, had stated that they had implicated respondents Nos.1 and 2 in this case on account of inadvertence and misunderstanding; an. Inspector of Police, a Deputy Superintendent of Police, an Assistant Superintendent of Police and then a panel of three police officers investigating this case had opined about innocence of respondents Nos.1 and 2; the tonga driver, an independent witness, had absolved respondents Nos.1 and 2 by maintaining before the police that the said respondents were not present at the scene of the crime at the relevant time; no weapon had been recovered from the possession of respondents Nos.1 and 2. It may be true that on the surface such factors weighing with the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur appear to be attractive vis-a-vis the matter of bail but a little scratching of the surface would have revealed to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur that all these factors could be a result of behindthe-scene manoeuvring by the accused party and application of extraneous pressure upon the local police. In this context the learned counsel for the petitioner has maintained that all the above mentioned factors had been manufactured by the local police on account of an undue pressure exerted upon it by a local political bigwig who presently occupies a seat in the Federal Cabinet. The learned counsel for the petitioner has maintained in this context that there was a "foreign" hand behind all the above mentioned factors belatedly engineered by the local police for the benefit of respondents Nos.1 and
2. In view of this stance of the learned counsel for the petitioner I have decided to exercise caution and to advert to the above mentioned factors with some care in order to safeguard the purity of the stream of justice. I must observe that the results of such care and caution exercised by me are quite upsetting, to say the least. It is admitted at all hands that during the initial investigation of this case both respondents Nos.1 and 2 had become fugitives from law and had, thus, been declared proclaimed Offenders. Even at the time of submission of the Challan the said respondents were still Proclaimed Offenders. It was only after submission of the Challan against respondents Nos, I and 2 that one after the other and in quick succession an Inspector of Police, a Deputy. Superintendent of Police, an Assistant Superintendent of Police and then a panel of three police officers lost no time in recording their opinions regarding innocence of respondents Nos.1 and 2. The record of this case does not disclose as to why a necessity was felt by an investigating officer to prepare a questionnaire to be answered by Wali Muhammad complainant and Muhammad Imran petitioner, especially when Wali Muhammad complainant had already lodged the F.I.R in this case containing all the necessary details and Muhammad Imran petitioner had already got his statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. Providing the ocular account of the alleged occurrence in some detail.
Both Wali Muhammad complainant and Muhammad Imran petitioner had fully supported their case against respondents Nos.1 and 2 at all stages of this case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has clearly maintained before me that the questionnaire in issue and the stated response to the same by Wali Muhammad complainant and Muhammad Imran petitioner are nothing but concoctir incarnate and that this material has been contrived by the concerned police officer only to weaken the prosecution's case against respondents Nos.1 and 2 and to carry out the command issued in that regard by the above mentioned political, bigwig of the area. The response of Wali Muhammad complainant and Muhammad Imran petitioner to the said questionnaire recorded by the relevant police officer has throughout been disowned by the complainant and the petitioner. As regards the statement allegedly made by the tonga driver namely Ijaz Ahmad before the police the learned counsel for the petitioner has thrown a challenge to the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 as well as the learned counsel for the State to point out from the record of investigation of this case anything which could establish that Ijaz Ahmad, who had posed himself to be the tonga driver available at the scene of the crime at the relevant time, was in fact the tonga driver who was available at the spot at the time of the occurrence in issue. After going through the entire record of this case from cover to cover the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 as well as the learned counsel for the State have conceded before me that the record is completely silent as to how Ijaz Ahmad had been identified and located as the tonga driver who was available at the place of occurrence at the time of the incident. In these circumstances the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently maintained that under the influence of local political bigwig the local police had planted Ijaz Ahmad as the relevant tonga driver who had then absolved respondents Nos.1 and 2 of their responsibility qua the murder of Muhammad Bilal deceased. It is unfortunate that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur had failed to exercise the requisite care and caution in this regard and had simply accepted the ipse dixit of the police regarding the above mentioned questionnaire and the tonga driver without even going through the record of this case which prima facie depicted the said factors to be of doubtful origin. If the said questionnaire and the statement of the tonga driver are taken out of consideration for the present purposes then the case of respondents Nos.1 and 2 for bail was squarely based upon an opinion of the police which was legally irrelevant a failure of the police to recover any weapon from the said respondents which was prima facie insufficient by itself to dislodge the consistent ocular account available against the said respondents till this stage.
5. It has already been observed by me above that while admitting respondents Nos.1 and 2 to bail the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur had completely failed to advert to the important considerations pertaining to escape of respondent No,1 from police custody during the initial investigation of this case and regarding both respondents Nos.1 and 2 having remained Proclaimed Offenders in this case. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur had also not bothered to consider that apart from having remained a Proclaimed Offender in the present case respondent No,1 was also a previous convict. The speed and rapidity with which different police officers had successively opined about innocence of respondents Nos.1 and 2 and the attempts made in this case by the local police to manufacture' different factors in order to destroy the prosecution's own case, especially when such an effort had been made after submission of the Challan in this case, were sufficient to raise eyebrows regarding bona fide of the whole exercise.
6. After attending to all the facts and circumstances of this case emerging thus far I have found that sufficient incriminatory evidence was available on the record of this case prima facie establishing respondents Nos.1 and 2's involvement in the murder in issue and that their admission to bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur was a result of an exercise which apparently lacked bona fide. A bail obtained through such scheming and machinations and through a process which was not above board does not merit upholding and maintaining by this Court. This petition is, therefore, allowed and post-arrest to respondents Nos.1 and 2 by the learned Additional C Sessions Judge, Kasur through his orders dated 6-1-2006 and 25-1-2006 respectively is cancelled. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 shall be taken into custody by the police and shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
7. Before parting with the order it may be clarified that the observations made in the present order shall always be treated as tentative in nature and the same shall not prejudice the learned trial Court in any manner.
8. I may add as a postscript that the length of this order may be unusual for an order in a matter of bail but the unusual length of this order has been necessitated by the unusual circumstances of this case. It goes without saying that no length of an order is long enough' to daunt, discourage 'or dissuade this Court from protecting the stream of justice from being polluted.
Bail cancelled.