About an occurrence at 3-00 p.m. On 26-5-1979, a report was lodged at 3-30 p.m. By Haji Muhammad Asghar, at P. S. Tandlianwala District Faisalabad under section 302/148/149. P. P. C. In which the petitioner was alleged to have fired with a rifle on the complainant's brother Muhammad Akbar which hit on the temple. Another shot was allegedly fired by Zulfiqar co-accused which hit on the back of the head of Muhammad Akbar. The former is stated to be an absconder.
Muhammad Akbar died of the injuries. There were other accused who had dangs in their hands and had allegedly stopped the tractor which the deceased was driving. The petitioner was arrested on 12-6-1979. The investigation had, lastly, been taken up by the S. P. Crimes Branch, Sargodha. In view of the various witnesses produced on behalf of the defence, the S. P. Crimes Branch found the petitioner not guilty and recommended that he be placed in column No. 2 of the challan. The report was approved by the D. I: G., Crimes Branch, Sargodha. Challan has since been submitted. The petitioner applied for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Faisalabad which was refused by the learned Sessions Judge on 7-8-1980. He has filed this application for bail.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely involved in the case. He was previously involved in the murder of the deceased's brother, namely, Muhammad Sharif and during the course of the investigation he was found innocent and after trial had been acquitted. Secondly, in the investigation made by the Crimes Branch in the present case, he has again been found innocent and that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. So the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. He has relied upon Hassan Muhammad alias Hassana and 2 others v. The State (1975 P Cr. L J 1273), and has also referred to Akbar Khan and others v. The State (1977 P Cr. L J 114), to distinguish that in the latter case the bail was declined because Court was not satisfied about the entry of innocence of the then accused.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the bail application on the grounds that the petitioner was named in the F. I. R. Having fired with the rifle at the deceased. F. I. R. Was promptly lodged. He has contended that the mere fact that the Crimes Branch has found the petitioner innocent, is no ground to grant him bail as the finding is not binding on the Court. He has relied upon Gul Muhammad v. Masam Khan and 3 others (1977 SCMR 27), to contend that bail granted by the High Court on the ground that the C. I. A. Staff' had found the accused persons to be innocent was cancelled by the Supreme Court. He referred to other case in which it was held that the finding of the investigation is not binding on Courts.
4. Mr. Mukhtar Ahmad, A. S. I., P. S. Tandalianwala has appeared with record. He has read out the report of the S. P. Crimes Branch, Sargodha, dated 28-6-1980 in which after referring to various witnesses produced by the defence and other material, the S. P. Crimes Branch had found the petitioner not guilty and recommended that he be put in Column No. 2. The report has been approved by the D. I: G., Sargodha.
5. There is no doubt that the i1nding of the Investigating Agency is not ipsi dixit binding on Courts. It can only be taken into account with other material on record. Observations in criminal cases, especially in bail matters have to be construed in the context of all the facts of the case in hand.
Individual observation divorced from the facts of the case cannot form basis of judgment or exercise of discretion in criminal matters. All the facts have to be taken together and judged to see as to what reasonable result those would lead to keeping a balance. In the present case, it has to be seen whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. He was accused by the complainant party of murder in the previously instituted case. He was found innocent by the Investigating agency and ultimately acquitted by a competent Court. Ordinary presump--tion of innocence was thus fortified by the judgment of a competent Court. The failure of attempt to get him to gallows having failed, another attempt cannot be ruled out, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner was stated in the present case to be armed with a rifle which he fired. After his arrest, no rifle has been recovered from him. Sufficiently a senior officer of the Crimes Branch has after investigation, found him to be innocent. On the one hand, the complainant and his witnesses allege that the petitioner has committed the crime of murder. On the other hand, defence witnesses say that he has not. No incriminating material has been recovered from him.
Investigating agency specially trained and at a sufficiently high level has found him innocent. The report of the S. P. Crimes Branch which Mr. Mukhtar Ahmad, A. S. I. Has read out in Court mentions persons who stated about the presence of the petitioner at places other than the place of occurrence at the relevant time. Apparently, those persons are respectable and independent people. There is no reason to believe that they were telling lies and taking risk on their own shoulders of shielding a murderer and inviting retaliation from the aggrieved persons. There are oral statements on one side and there are oral statements on the other. The latter have been found to be correct by a responsible public authority. There is no justifiable reason to say that the witnesses produced by the defence were liars and respon--sible public authorities were acting arbitrarily and preparing false record. Then, there is no other incriminating material available on record against the petitioner. He was arrested by the local police. Rifle allegedly used by him has not been recovered. In the case of Gul Muhammad relied upon bar the learned counsel for the State, the facts were that the accused were alleged to have with tire-arm committed a double murder, attempted murder of four injured P. Ws. And arson. The witnesses ha deposed against the accused persons before the Inquiry Magistrate. Sub sequent investigation by the C. I. A. Holding the accused innocent was found not to be sufficient for allowing them to remain on bail. In the present case, there are no injured witnesses. No incriminating material has been recovered from the petitioner. He has been found innocent by specially trained high officers. He had previously been accused and acquitted by a competent Court. Keeping the balance between the two sides and allowing benefit of doubt to the accused to which he is entitled under the law, it cannot be said that there are reasonable grounds, at present, to believe that the petitioner is guilty of offences charge against him. In all the circumstances of the case, the petitioner appears the entitled to bail and discretion of the Court is called for in his favour. He is, therefore, allowed bail in the sum of Rs.
20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.
C. Faisalabad. It goes without saying that any thing said in this order is confined to these proceedings and would have no impact or relevancy in the course of trial of the accused persons.