' CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.---Petitioner Muhammad Hassan by way of the instant petition has prayed for bail after-arrest in case F.I.R. No,154 registered under sections 302/324/148/149, P.P.C.
With Police Station Kanganpur, District Kasur on 18-4-2008.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per the F.I.R. Is that on 17-4-2008 at about 4-00 p.m. Muhammad Hassan (petitioner) armed with .12 bore gun along with others, having firearms, in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly formed by them, have committed the Qatl-e-Amd of deceased Abdul Malik and attempted the Qatl-e-Amd of Muhammad Akram. He is stated to have fired hitting the upper right side of the ear of the deceased, who fell down and in that condition, Zaman accused with his gun had fired hitting on his right eye and the other accused remained firing. The deceased succumbed to his injuries at the spot. It was on account of previous enmity between the parties over the murder of Muhammad Sadiq, the maternal uncle of the complainant.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going A through the record, I find that he (petitioner) is named in the F.I.R. With role of firing with .12 bore gun at Abdul Malik deceased hitting on the upper right side of his ear The fact also remains that there are two more cross-versions of the alleged incident. One is from Muhammad Mansha, his co-accused against the complainant, party. It is in regard to the Qatle-Amd of deceased Asghar Ali and three injured persons namely Muhammad Abbas, Riasat and Shabbir Ahmad. The second is from Ghulam Mustafa, the son of said Asghar Ali deceased. I have been informed that both the parties have been challaned to court in these versions and so,. Their matter is before the learned trial court. I have also been informed that the formal charge has been framed against the accused in the same but no P.W. Examined so far.
4. Due to the cross-version of the either sides, it is yet to be seen that which party had in fact initiated the aggression or that who was it's victim. This will be attended to by the learned trial court during the course of trial and not to go into deep to the same at this stage, lest anybody may not be prejudiced in his case. Anyhow, the admitted existence of cross-versions requires further inquiry into his guilt. Not only this, the fact also remains that he in the initial investigation, in which report statedly has been prepared by the SHO of the concerned Police Station has been found to be not involved in the matter. The fact also remains that in the investigation by Muhammad Azam, Inspector Range Investigation Branch, Sheikhupura, it has been found that as there was excessive firing from the accused, so it could not be determined during the same that whose fire had hit the deceased resulting into his death.
5. Although the ipse dixit of the police is not binding upon the court, yet this is a relevant circumstance to be taken into consideration while deciding the question of bail. Hence, his case definitely falls within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. I am conscious of the fact that he has statedly been arrested on 20-1-2010. This was about three months ago. I am but also well reminded of the well-settled proposition in criminal administration of justice that when case of an accused may become one of further inquiry into his guilt, he then is entitled to bail as of right and not mere grace and he cannot be detained unnecessarily for a moment even.
6. I, therefore, find that the case for his enlargement on bail has been made out. Resultantly, the petition is accepted and he (petitioner) is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
7. I may observe here that the above observations are tentative in nature and meant only for the disposal of the instant matter. These shall have no bearing at all on anybody's case at trial.