' MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, J.---The applicant has applied post-arrest bail in Crime No,90 of 2010, Police Station Adilpur, lodged under sections 302, 399, 402, 324, 353, 440, P.P.C. And section 7 A.T.A.
2. The bail application moved by the applicant in the trial court was dismissed vide order dated 30- 9-2011.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 31-8-2010, complainant SIP/S.H.O. Syed Iltaf Hussain of Police Station Adilpur lodged F.I.R. Alleging therein that on 30-8-2008 at 1745 hours, he along with his subordinate staff left 'Police Station for patrolling. When they reached at bridge of Bandh". Minor, they received spy information that near village Noor Muhammad Mahar, six persons armed with weapons are standing in order to commit some offence. On receipt of such information, complainant party proceeded towards pointed place and on the headlights of vehicle saw and identified/accused Abdul Karim Shaikh and five unidentified persons armed with Kalashnikovs standing on the road. Accused persons signalled the complainant party to stop. The complainant _ party got down and disclosed their identity and directed the accused to throw their weapons and surrender before them. The accused persons immediately took position and started direct firing upon the police with the intention to kill them. They fired upon H.C. Habibullah Jhatial who raised cry and fell down. The police in retaliation also fired. The culprits taking the advantage of darkness and crops ran away. The firing continued for 20 minutes.- Complainant appointed A.S.-I.
Ranjho Khan Bozdar and P.C. Mir Hassan Mahar as Mashirs and inspected body of H.C. Habibullah and found one fire above on his right eye and its exit on back of right side of head through, one fire on right cheek and its exit, one fire on right side of chest and its exit and one fire on middle finger of right hand and he was found dead. The complainant along with his staff tracked the footprints of culprits which disappeared near new Chak.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is innocent person and has been malafidely implicated by the complainant. There is inordinate delay in lodging of F.I.R. Of 17 hours without any cogent reason. He further argued that the complainant has shown encounter near village Noor Muhammad Mahar but no efforts were made to associate any private person as Mashir of the alleged incident. He further argued that there was no possibility of identifying the applicant in the headlight of vehicle when the incident allegedly took place in the night hours. He further argued that there is no specific allegation against the applicant except general allegations.
He further argued that in the same crime, co-accused Imam Bux and Shahzado both have bee,n granted interim pre-arrest bail by this court and the role of the applicant, is not different than above accused persons. He further argued that identification of the applicant in the headlight of vehicle is weak type of evidence and possibility of false implication of the applicant cannot be ruled out.
5. The learned D.P.-G. For the State opposed the bail application and he argued that name of the present applicant is specifically mentioned in the F.I.R. And the applicant was properly identified by the complainant and other police officials. He further argued that H.C. Habibullah lost his life during encounter. He further argued that the applicant was arrested on 4-9-2010 and K.K. Was recover from him.
6. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant and learned D.P.-G. For the State. At the very outset, let us clarify' that the case of the applicant is different than the case of co-accused Imam Bux and Shahzado who have been granted interim pre-arrest bail by this Court in Criminal Bail Application No,D-180 of 2011, as the names of said applicants were not mentioned in the F.I.R., but they were implicated by the prosecution witnesses in their statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. Which created doubts- and their case required further inquiry: So far as the case of present applicant is concerned, his name is not only mentioned in the F.I.R. But KK was also recovered from him at the time of his arrest on 4-9-2010. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that no specific role has been assigned to the applicant which is contrary to the record. In the F.I.R. It is clearly mentioned that the present applicant along with some unidentified persons was found at the place of incident duly armed with weapons and also fired upon the police party due to which one Head Constable lost his life. The learned counsel failed to satisfy us as to why the applicant was implicated in the. Case falsely. Even no ground for false implication or previous enmity has been shown except an argument that the applicant has been implicated by the, complainant with mala fide intentions, but nothing has been placed on record to support this contention. The learned counsel raised ground that the applicant has been falsely involved due to instance of local political persons but no identity of any local political person has been disclosed in the application on whose instance applicant has been involved in this case. The argument of the learned counsel that co-accused Imam Bux and Shahzado have been implicated by the prosecution by way of statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., has no nexus or germane to the case of present applicant whose name is properly mentioned in the F.I.R., therefore, the case of said co-accused persons cannot be treated at par to the case of present applicant. It is well- settled that sufficient grounds exist for further inquiry into guilt of accused means that question should be such which has nexus with the result of the case and can show or tend to show that accused was not guilty of offence with which he was charged. Mere possibility of further inquiry exists almost in every criminal case. Bail as of right is only possible when finding is rendered that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused had committed the alleged offence. In. The present case, there are no reasonable grounds for us to believe that the applicant has not committed a non bailable offence. There are no sufficient grounds to hold that it is a case of further inquiry.
7. Consequently, this bail application is dismissed. The observations made above are tentative in nature and shall not prejudice the case of either party. Since the challan has been submitted, therefore, the learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial preferably within a period of four months.