' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---Seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,295 of 2011 dated 26-4-2011 under sections 302, 34 P.P.C. Registered at Police Station A Division, District Kasur.
2. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I find that the allegation against the petitioner is merely that of raising lalkara at the time of occurrence, being empty-handed. The complainant along with his son Abdul Ghaffar (deceased), Ghulam Rasul and Amjad Nazeer took tea at about 7-30 p.m. On 25-4-2011, when they heard some hubbub in the street, they came outside and saw Farooq Ahmad and Abdul Majeed (brother of the petitioner) wrestling against each other and they also showered abuses upon one another. It was at this stage when Abdul Hameed (petitioner) allegedly raised lalkara and induced his son Abdul Kareem, who was armed with a pistol, to fire at the person, quarreling with his brother. The fire shot made by Abdul Kareem proved terminal as it cut the life line of Abdul Ghaffar (deceased). The motive is not attributable to the petitioner as it pertains to cutting some dirty jokes by one Mudasar Ali, the brother of Farooq Ahmad with Abdul Hameed (petitioner). Abdul Ghaffar (deceased) did not test muscles with Abdul Majeed or Abdul Hameed, (petitioner) nor with any person belonging to the accused side so, the lalkara allegedly made by the petitioner cannot be deemed to be commanding in nature. The investigating officer formulated an opinion during the course of investigation that Abdul Hameed (petitioner) was merely present at the scene of occurrence, empty handed and committed no overt-act whatsoever during the entire episode. The opinion of the investigating officer admittedly does not bind the court in any manner still its persuasiveness, by keeping in view the attending circumstances of the case, cannot be overlooked easily. Being father of his co-accused Abdul Kareem who is the principal accused, the false implication of the petitioner in this case cannot be ruled out. Sufficient reasons exist to believe that the petitioner's case constitutes need for further inquiry into his guilt as envisaged under section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
3. Resultantly, the instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs 1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.