IJAZ AHMAD CHADUHRY, J.---Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C., Haji Ahmad Khan, petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No, 661, dated 15-7-2009, registered under sections 302/148/149/109, P. P.0 . At Police Station Sadar, Sheikhupura on the statement of Liaqat Ali Virk complainant.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 15-7-2009, Liaqat Ali Virk son of Jahan Khan Virk lodged a complaint with the police wherein he contended that he and his younger brother namely Shafqat Ali had a land dispute with Ahmad Khan and Asghar Ali Virk. On 15-7-2009 at about 10-00 a.m., the complainant along with his brother Shafaqat Ali and son namely Asad were plugging their fields with the tractor but after a short while Ahmad Khan petitioner, Taimoor and Asghar Ali all armed with fire arms along with 16/17 persons out of whom the complainant could identify Safdar, Amanat Gondal and Zulifqar Ali who were also equipped with weapons came there. The complainant and his son also proceeded towards the tractor but in the meantime Ahmad Khan petitioner, Taimoor Asghar Ali and others stopped tractor at gun-pinot and forcibly pulled down Shafqat Ali and made him lie on the ground. Ahmad Khan petitioner, Taimoor and Asghar made successive shots with their respective fire-arm on Shafqat Ali deceased as a result of which he died at the spot.
Thereafter, Safdar, Amanat, Zulifqar and their other unknown culprits made firing towards the complainant and his son but they saved their lives by lying on the ground. The accused persons decamped while resorting to firing and dancing over the dead body.
' The motive behind the occurrence was alleged to be that a land dispute for which cases were pending before different Courts. It was also claimed that the occurrence had taken place at the behest of Munir Ahmad, Sageer Ahmad and Tanveer Ahmad as on 14-7-2009 at about 7-00 p.m., they were seen and overheard by Zafar Hussain and Fazal Abbas while conversation that the matter be brought to an end and in order to secure the land Shafaqat Ali should be killed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that during the investigation the petitioner has not been found present at the spot; that no recovery whatsoever has been effected from his possession and he has been found an accused only to the extent of hatching conspiracy with the co-accused and as such he is only an accused under section 109, P.P.C. During the investigation; that the complainant party being not satisfied with the investigation applied for first change of investigation which was recommended and in the second investigation which was conducted by SP (Investigation,) Kasur, to the extent of the petitioner, it has been found that he was innocent and was not present at the spot; that the petitioner is aged about 80 years as per his Identity Card; that none of the fire has been received by the deceased on the chest as claimed by the eye-witnesses; that the firing was made on the deceased from the back side and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case as he had purchased agricultural land and dispute was pending with the complainant party; that the other accused during the course of investigation conducted by the first Investigating Officer were also found innocent and it has been declared that Ali Raza, Amjad and Tufail, three servants of the accused party had committed the offence; that Ali Raza and Amjad have been arrested while Tufail is proclaimed offender; that recoveries have also been effected from Ali Raza and Amjad and the weapons of offence allegedly recovered from them have matched with empties recovered from the spot.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General have maintained in unison that the petitioner is duly nominated in the F.I.R. With specific role of causing injury with fire-arm weapon; that the petitioner is directly connected with the motive setup in the F.I.R.; that being dissatisfied with the investigation of first Investigating Officer the complainant preferred Writ Petition No, 15791 of 2009 before this Court which was disposed of by this Court, vide order, dated 20-8-2009 and this Court had shown dissatisfaction over the investigation conducted by the first Investigating Officer and found that the conduct of Iftikhar Ahmad, S.-I./Investigating Officer seemed to be doubtful and above the board as according to zimni, dated 24-7-2009, he had found all the nominated accused guilty; that the local police had tampered with the zimnis as actually the weapon of offence was recovered from the petitioner but it was subsequently shown to have been recovered from Ali Raza who was recovered by the bailiff of the learned Session Judge, Sheikhupura on the behest of the petitioner; that the said tampered Zminis have been taken into possession by the S.P. (Investigation); that the petitioner is the principal accused of the main occurrence; that the petitioner is in jail but he is living in private room of DHQ Hospital being influential one; that being dissatisfied with the investigation the complainant has already filed a private complaint in which all the nominated accused have been summoned to face the trial and the statement of one P.W.1., i.e, doctor has already been recorded.
Reliance is placed on PLD 2009 SC 385, PLD 2009 SC 440 and 2007 SCM R 1798, wherein even the accused of conspiracy was not allowed bail and the petitioner is not entitled to the said concession.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with their assistance with due care and caution. The petitioner along with the co-accused is named in the F.I.R. With specific role of causing fire arm injuries to the deceased. Although during the investigation conducted by the local police, he has been found an accused of hatching of conspiracy with the other accused, but it is settled law that the police opinion is not binding on the Courts. Even otherwise against the said investigation, Writ Petition No, 15791 of 2009 was filed by the complainant before this Court, which was disposed of on 20-8-2009 with the observations made by this Court in para. No,5 of the said order and it was also observed that if the petitioner moved an application for transfer of the investigation before the Additional Inspector-General (Investigation), he would dispose of the same within fortnight and also ensure that the same be transferred to some person of integrity to unearth the true facts while joining both the parties. Subsequently, the S.P. (Investigation), Kasur investigated the case thoroughly and found that the petitioner had purchased land on cheaper rates which was in the joint Khata of the complainant party and he had tried to take possession of the said land forcibly by sending the armed persons at the site and as a result of this attempt of the petitioner, unfortunate incident had taken place. From the perusal of the investigation conducted to the extent of the petitioner by S.P. (Investigation), it is found that the petitioner was the main anchor of the present incident. The deeper appreciation of the evidence cannot be considered at bail stage. The offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And the petitioner has failed to show any reason for his false implication in the present occurrence. In such circumstances, I am not inclined to allow this petition, which is hereby dismissed having no merits.