1. SYED ZAKIR HUSSAIN, J.---By this application, the applicant has sought post-arrest hail in Crime No, 20 of 2009 of Police Station Napar Kot, registered for an offence punishable under sections 17/1, 17/2 HO, 324, 353, 148, 149, 427, P.P.C.
2. The story of the prosecution case relates to an incident to the effect that about 12 persons attempted to loot the public transport bearing Coach No,7773 DYP on 7-4-2009 at 1730 hours on the highway road and on such information the police party being on patrolling duty, as per Police Entry No,10 of even date, and time of Police Station Naperkot rushed to the place of wardhat: and intercepted the culprits, which' resulted in an encounter of serious nature between both the sides by use of firearm weapons, which resulted ultimately in causing injuries to two persons of the coach, and that of one of the culprits. The police succeeded in controlling the situation but apprehended none. They however, allowed the coach to leave the place of wardhat for its destination without taking any evidence from any of the occupants thereof, and without providing any treatment to the alleged injured persons of the same as well, for the reasons known to the police party while it collected four empties of the K.K. rifle along with one bag containing one magazine loaded with 20 live bullets of 7.62.
3. The police carried out the relevant proceedings over there dispatched the dead body of the deceased to the hospital for postmortem examination. The police then reached the place of wardhat where it registered the F.I.R. against the unknown persons 12 in number. The police could not however, arrest any person as culprit of the incident and submitted the charge against 8 known and four unknown persons for an offence punishable under sections 17/1, 17/2 HO, 324, 353, 148, 149, 427, P.P.C. for the purpose of trial in the competent court of law without any positive incriminating evidence whether ocular or circumstantial or otherwise. On 19-1-2010, the present applicant Shahbaz was arrested from his own house in presence of the police mashirs under memo pi-pared to such effect. No witness from his locality was taken. Learned counsel states that there is no evidence against the applicant at all and therefore, no case is made out against him for the purpose of prosecution and trial. Nomination of the applicant on, the part of the police officer on the basis of the already acquired knowledge, based on the fact that both the police and the applicant are from the same area carries no weight. There is no other evidence which could corroborate or prove the matter at all. The encounter is doubtful the police officials have sustained no, injury, whereas one Siddique is said to have died as a result of cross-firing in question and such aspect makes the encounter doubtful. Such facts need public inquiry, which has not been A conducted in the matter. The high-ups of the police have not been taken notice of the death, which amounts to killing while police officials even in the case of encounter of like nature, has no license to take the life, and then goes unchecked; no F I.R seems to have been registered in the matter of the killing of the said deceased person. However, the matter of death in question, which apparently goes against the police party, makes them guilty whereas the police officials concerned have no incriminating evidence even against the said persons; there is 'no evidence as to the coach; there is no evidence as to show if there were passengers, and if yes, whether they were attempted to be robbed or looted as alleged; and if it is so, the police killed the deceased culprit over there, and an encounter, as alleged, took place; whether two passengers stand injured as a result of firing of the culprits etc.: there is no possibility of acquiring evidence to prove such event or facts as the police has itself, allowed the coach and passengers to go away and in other words, the available evidence of that time went disappeared, and the P.Ws. confined their evidence, which even if brought on record, would hardly constitute a valid, substantive piece of incriminating evidence, warranting the conviction as is required in trial of like nature. The case as a whole seems to be doubtful. These observations however, will not come in the way of the trial Court.
4. The State Counsel concedes the request of the grant of bail.
5. For the foregoing reasons, by a short order dated 6-12-2010, the applicant was granted bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court..
6. The learned trial Court however, will take the notice of the existing position of the case and if an application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. either on its own or on application of the accused side, which learned counsel will file, will dispose of the same within a week next thereto, without fail in the interest of justice.