' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---Petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,101 of 2010 dated 12-2- 2010, for offences under sections 302, 148, 149 P.P.C, registered at Police Station, City Hatizabad on the complaint of Haji Imtiaz Hussain.
2. Precisely the prosecution case is that Umar Farooq petitioner along with his co-accused being armed with firearms committed the murder of Aamir Imtiaz at 2-00 p.m. On 12-2-2010. The petitioner Umar Farooq fired a shot with his rifle which landed on the back of Aamir lmtiaz, causing a terminal injury.
3. I find that the petitioner was arrested in this case on 19-3-2010 whereafter he led to the recovery of rifle .44 bore on 3-4-2010. The F.I.R. In this case was lodged within two hours of the alleged occurrence and the challan has been submitted before the learned trial court by the police on 10- 4-2010, with the name of the petitioner in its Column No,3.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has emphatically argued that the story contained in the F.I.R. Is false and preposterous which could not be verified by the Investigating Officer as he formulated the opinion on conclusion of the investigation that the complainant party had committed the aggression by attacking the house of the petitioner where they resorted to indiscriminate firing which left countless firing marks not only on the doors, windows and walls of the house of the accused side but also on the walls of the nearby houses. He has further contended that it was the frontal space of the house of the accused where the occurrence had taken place and one of the accused Sheikh Muhammad Yaseen, according to the result of the investigation, had returned the fire shots in defence from the rooftop of his house but the retaliatory firing made by him had not hit the deceased as he had only attempted to fend off the attack of the complainant party. It has been further submitted that the crime empties were found from a place, situated in front of the house of the petitioner and that the motive alleged in the F.I.R. Was also proved untrue during the investigation, as contrary to the allegations of the F.I.R., it was the deceased who was gambling along with his game players in the morning of 12-2-2010 and that the petitioner had forbidden him from his immoral act which caused annoyance to the deceased who in cahoots of his aids, being armed with heavy arsenals committed aggression against the complainant party. Further contends that the place of occurrence was found to have been maliciously and conspiratorially changed to the place, as alleged in the F.I.R. Which has also been noticed by the Investigating Officer who has concluded the investigation on the said note. Submits that the petitioner was not found to have fired at the deceased and it has been opined by the I.O. That he could not opine with certainty as to whose fire shot had extinguished the life of the deceased. Lastly contends that Abdul Majeed and Imran, the co-accused of the petitioner, have been found innocent during the course of investigation and in the attending circumstances, the case of the petitioner squarely falls within the ambit of further inquiry as envisaged under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Relies upon Muhammad Hayat v. The State (1974 PCr.LJ 450), Nisar Ali v. The State (NLR 1992 Criminal 699), Allah Rakha v. The State PLD 1984 Lah..395, Muhammad Anwar v. The State (NLR 1999 Criminal 704), Rehmat Ullah alias Rehman v. The State and another (1970 SCMR 299), Abbas v. The State (2009 PCr.LJ Lahore 384), Tabbasum Ali v. State 2004 YLR 822 and Abid Hussain Khan v. The State (2010 PCr.LJ Lahore 564).
5. Conversely, the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has strongly opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner with the contention that both the parties knew each other for years and there was not probability of mistaken identity of the accused who in the broad daylight had committed the cold-blooded murder of the deceased which was viewed not only by the complainant but also by the witnesses Kashaf Imtiaz, Mustafa, Sarwar and Nadeem Ashraf who have recorded their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. Strictly in line with the version of the complainant as contained in his statement under section 154, Cr.P.C.
Further submits that the petitioner has been saddled with specific liability of firing effectively upon the deceased with his rifle and thereby authoring the only terminal firearm injury on the body of the deceased. Adds that the opinion of the Investigating Officer is bald, sketchy and perverse which is not based upon any cogent or admissible material and the I.O. Appears to have fared dishonestly being hands in glove with the accused side.
6. The opinion of the Investigating Officer has been blown out of proportions by the learned counsel for the petitioner and lie deemed it so sacrosanct that he stretched it to beyond recognized limits and for a moment, he overlooked the settled principles of law on the subject by submitting that the opinion of the Investigating Officer in this case, would necessarily overweigh and sit in on the prosecution case by all means, notwithstanding the evidence available against the petitioner. It has been so held time and again by this court, as well as by the apex court of the country that the opinion of the Investigating Officer, if not based upon any cogent or plausible material, would be of no consequence A to the case of the accused and it would not bind the court in any manner.
' The opinion of the I.O. May be relevant and bearing persuasiveness if the data collected by him to base his opinion upon, is confidence-inspiring and prima facie appealable to common prudence but if otherwise, it is liable to be rejected and brushed aside for the purpose of bail. It is of course the domain of the police to conduct the investigation and formulate an opinion but they cannot do so by evaluating the evidence of the prosecution which is the exclusive jurisdictional authority of the trial court. I find that the Investigating Officer has consumed every ounce of his energy to throw the prosecution case to doldrums and has failed to impress me by his uncalled for, uncanny and unscrupulous investigation.
7. The petitioner is specifically named in the F.I.R. With the role that he had tired with his rifle which landed on the back of Aamer Imtiaz deceased and proved fatal. The postmortem examination report is manifest of the same fact and it entails solitary firearm injury on the back of the deceased, near lumber region. The story contained in the F.I.R. Is impeccably endorsed by the statements of the other eyewitnesses, recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. The petitioner led to the recovery of rifle .44 bore on 3-4-2010. The challan, on conclusion of the investigation; has been submitted before the learned trial court with placement of the name of the petitioner in its Column No,3 which speaks itself as to the validity of the opinion recorded by the Investigating Officer in this case. I have great reverence and respect for the case laws, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but these do not assimilate the facts of this case. Prima facie there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner has a nexus with the occurrence in hand and his case catches the prohibition of section 497, Cr.P.C.
8. For the foregoing reasons, I am hot inclined to allow this application, which is accordingly dismissed.