Muhammad Ijaz and Muhammad Nawaz/petitioners have sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No, 181, registered at Police Station Shah Gharib, District Narowal, on 11-09-2008, for offences under"
Sections 302 & 34, PPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on the day of occurrence at 4:30, while the complainant was present at his shop, a car stopped in front of the shop of his brother Shoukat Ali. One person came out of the said car and started firing at Shaukat Ali. On hearing noise, the complainant, Siraj Din and Muhammad Boota, father and brother of the complainant respectively, reached the shop of Shaukat Ali, who succumbed to the injuries at the spot. The accused fled away from-the scene of occurrence on the said car.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complainant through his supplementary statement and statements of the PWs has involved the petitioners in the instant case falsely; that two brothers of the petitioners were murdered on two different dates i,e, on 25-09.2007 & 04-04- 2008 and in the said cases the accused after conclusion of the trial have been convicted and sentenced to death; that father of the said accused Nazir Ahmad Khan manoeuvered false implication of the petitioners and got registered false cases through FIRS No, 92, 93 & 94 of 2009; that Irshad Muhammad father of the petitioners had earlier filed Crl. Misc. No, 7901-B of 2009, which was converted into Writ Petition and while disposing of the said writ petition vide judgment dated 06-07-2009 certain observations were made in the said judgment, which have been read by the learned counsel for the petitioners, according to which, the complainant party and all the accused persons were the residents of the same village, who were known to each other' and if they had participated in the incident then why the complainant and other witnesses had not mentioned their names in their statements recorded under Sections 154 and 161 Cr.P.C; that the investigation in the said case was declared to be based on mala fide; therefore, the matter was referred to the Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, to constitute an investigating team consisting of at least five senior police officers. Learned counsel further contended that said Team was consisted of two SSPs and other senior Police Officers and was headed by the DIG, Gujranwala; that according to the findings of the said Team the arrest of the petitioners was required as it was found that though the petitioners had not participated in the occurrence but they had knowledge about the actual culprits who had participated in the occurrence; that this Court in the judgment dated 06- 07-2009 had also observed that the findings of the police officers were based on mala fide intentions to falsely implicate the petitioners; and in such circumstances ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners may be confirmed.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant states the complainant and two witnesses namely Siraj Din and Muhammad ,Boota in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. stated that due to fear of the accused they had not mentioned the names of the petitioner; that when they were encouraged in an open Katchary they had mentioned the real culprits with specific role of firing at Shaukat Ali; that Muhammad Nawaz was sitting in the car at the time of incident; that there was no mala fide on the part of the complainant for false implication of the petitioners as both the parties are residents of the same village; that the complainant belongs to Arain Brothery; that previously litigation is pending between Phatan and Rajput families; that Shaukat Ali was murdered due to the suspicion that he was providing information to the opposite group of the petitioners; that FIR No, 204 was registered in the year 2007 in which the accused of murder case of the sons of Irshad Muhammad, were being provided protection by Shaukat Ali; that recoveries are yet to be effected from the petitioners that the complainant had no belief on the police findings and he is still insisting that the petitioners are his accused.
6. Learned DPG, while vehemently opposing this petition, has adopted the line of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
8. The complainant and the eye-witnesses are residents of village Kanjrur and admittedly the petitioners are also residents of the same village. There is not dispute that they were not known to each other rather they are neighbourers. The petitioners have been involved in the instant case through supplementary statements after a considerable time The source of information through which the complainant or the witnesses came to know about participation of the petitioners in the occurrence, was not disclosed by the witnesses. Father of the petitioners Irshad Muhammad had filed Crl. Misc. No, 7901-B2009, which was converted into Writ Petition and this Court after thorough discussion disposed of the said writ petition vide judgment dated 06-07-2009 while holding that the investigation in the case was based on mala fide and the Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, was directed to constitute an investigating team for the fair investigation of the case.
9. After the order passed by this Court a Committee of five senior police officers headed by the DIG, Gujranwala, was constituted, which finalized the investigation on the basis of the same evidence which was collected when the above referred judgment was passed while declaring that the witnesses were not truthful and why they kept mum for about considerable time in disclosing the names of the accused who were their neighbourers and co-villagers, when specifically the witnesses were claiming that they had seen the incident It creates serious doubt in the case of prosecution qua involvement of the petitioners. It was held by the Committee and the Investigating Officer that the petitioners were neither present at the spot at the time of incident nor they had fired at the deceased or any PWs but their arrest was necessary to know the whereabouts of the actual culprits. The Committee made these findings without recording any further evidence, therefore, only for this purpose the custody of the petitioners cannot be handed over to the police, particularly when during investigation the petitioners were not found guilty, how their arrest can be justified. Concession of pre-arrest bail is meant for the innocent citizens, who are found to have been involved in criminal cases with mala fide intention and ulterior motive.
10. In view of the above, I find that involvement of the petitioners in the instant case is based on mala fide intention and with ulterior motive. The investigation has already been completed and according to the Investigating Officer, the petitioners were not found present at the spot nor they had used any weapon during the occurrence. No useful purpose would be served if the petitioners are sent behind the bars. Resultantly, I accept this petition and confirm ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners vide order dated 15-01-2010, subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rupees One Lac (Rs, 1,00,000/-) each, with one surety each, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.