' KHURSHID ANWAR BHINDER, J.--- The petitioner seeks confirmation of ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to him by this Court on 8-8-2008 in case F.I.R. No,360 of 2008, dated 27-4-2008, registered under section 302/34, P.P.C. At Police Station "Shafiqabad, Lahore.
2. Precise allegations against the petitioner are that he along with his son had tried to demolish the gate of the house of the complainant whereupon complainant along with his other family members had an altercation with the petitioners and as an altercation deceased was murdered by the petitioner and his son.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only Japha is attributed to the petitioner and he being an old man of 65 years of age is not strong enough to hold the deceased. He further submits that the petitioner was not present at the time of occurrence, rather he was present at his native city Jehlum, where he has his own business and was present at the place of his business. He has referred to the affidavits from the respectable of the locality of Jehlum, who had deposed that the present petitioner was very much present at his place of business at Jehlum at the time and date of occurrence. He has also referred to the medical report as well as post-mortem report which reveal the fact that there are simple bruises on the body of the deceased and the real cause of death of the deceased was due to cardiac arrest and not because of those injuries.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed bail application of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. With specific role. He has also referred to certain affidavits which .Were sworn by those persons who had seen the occurrence. He further submits that cause of death of the deceased was because of the injuries caused by the son of the petitioner and the petitioner had also actively participated in the occurrence while holding the deceased in his Japha, therefore, he was equally liable for the commission of the offence.
5. Learned D.P.-G. Also opposes bail application of the petitioner and adopts the same arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned D.P.-G. And have also perused the record. There is no denying the fact that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. With specific role, but I am afraid as per finding of Investigating Officer, it is clearly revealed that he has investigated the matter thoroughly and in his findings regarding the plea of alibi taken by the petitioner, it is established beyond any shadow of doubt that the petitioner was very much present at his native city Jehlum, where he has his own business.
He had also associated some of the respectable of the locality where the petitioner does his business who had deposed that the petitioner was very much present at the time of occurrence in the city Jehlum and conducted his regular business. Petitioner is also declared innocent in police findings. After the perusal of medical report as well as post-mortem report, it is established that the real cause of death of the deceased is not because of those injuries which were attributed to the son of the petitioner, rather deceased died because of cardiac arrest. It is also worth mentioning that apparently the petitioner does not seem to be strong enough to hold the deceased in his Japha, especially when he was not carrying any weapon in his hand and on the alarm of the deceased rest of the inmates of the house could have very easily got him released from the Japha of the petitioner, therefore, as per facts and circumstances of the case, the story narrated in the F.I.R. Seems unbelievable, fabricated and concocted.
7. Perusal of MLR also reveals that there were simple bruises on the body of the deceased, which could not have possibly caused death of the deceased. Mala fide on the part of the complainant against the petitioner is also proved, as there is continuous dispute between the parties regarding the construction of gate at the house of the complainant and due to this dispute as well as the present altercation complainant got the instant case registered against the petitioner.
8. I am, therefore, convinced that petitioner's case is that of further inquiry into his guilt. Hence, I confirm ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner by this Court on 8-8-2008 subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
' Petition stands disposed of.