' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---The petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No, 103, dated 14-3-2011, under sections 302, 324, 148, 149 P.P.C., registered at Police Station Dinga, District Gujrat.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he being armed with a kalashnikov, joined by his co- accused who too were armed with kalashnikov, resorted to indiscriminate firing and thereby caused cold blooded murder of Amjad Javed besides causing two firearm injuries to Faisal, one being the entry wound and the other as exit wound; specifically speaking, the petitioner raised lalkara at the time of occurrence and immediately thereafter he fired a burst through his kalashnikov which hit the forehead and right shoulder of Javed Amjad (deceased) who fell onto the ground and succumbed to the injuries within no time; the motive behind the occurrence pertained to previous enmity between the parties.
3. During the course of investigation, a cross version was registered on 17-3-2011 for offences under sections 324/427/148/149, P.P.C. Against the complainant party of the F.I.R. On the statement of Zahid (petitioner).
4. Two persons Ehsan Ullah and Sarfraz, from the accused side also received firearm injuries during the occurrence but this fact has not been specifically mentioned in the F.I.R. By the complainant who in somewhat vague terms alleged that some of the assailants also received injuries during the occurrence but at the hands of their co-accused.
5. The MLR of Ehsan Ullah accused reveals one firearm injury whereas that of Sarfraz accused entails three firearm entry wounds, one showing the locale of injury as chest.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the crime had been reported by the complainant with distorted facts and many important features had been withheld by him; the injuries of Ehsan Ullah and Sarfraz accused have been suppressed by the complainant; the fact about receipt of injuries by the accused had been mentioned so casually in the F.I.R. As if no body was injured on the accused side; the cross version got lodged by Zahid (petitioner) stood the test of investigation and the accused mentioned therein have been challaned under section 173 Cr.P.C.; the Investigating Officer after extensive investigation formulated an opinion that the complainant party of the F.I.R. Case were aggressed and the accused mentioned therein had been aggressed upon; the Investigating Officer-recovered a kalashnikov and crime empties lying near the dead body of Amjad Javed deceased which strongly reflects on the veracity of the version of Ghazanfar Ali complainant; the petitioner's case notwithstanding the aforesaid role, constitutes need for further inquiry into his guilt as contemplated under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Relies upon "Shoaib Mehmood Butt v. Iftikhar-ul-Haq and 3 others" (1996 SCM R 1845).
7. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General Punjab assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioner has been burdened with the specific role of causing terminal injuries to Amjad Javed deceased, after having himself raised a lalkara; the medical evidence fully corroborates the version of the complainant; the Investigating Officer recovered 130 crime empties from the place of occurrence which corroborates the allegation that all the accused had sprayed volleys of bullets during the occurrence; the petitioner having been arrested on 25-3- 2011 led to the recovery of a kalashnikov on 7-4-2011; the challan against the petitioner and his co- accused stands submitted before the trial court on 18-4-2011; the petitioner is a hardened and desperate criminal as he has the history of involvement in as many as 16 cases of similar nature.
Learned Deputy Prosecutor-General Punjab finally submits that the Investigating Officer had opined during investigation that it was the complainant party of F.I.R. Case which had opened attack on the accused party at the relevant time of occurrence. Relies upon "Nasir Muhammad Wassan and another v. The State" (1992 SCM R 501), "Muhammad Ashraf v. The State" (2007 M LD 482),
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. , 9.., It has been alleged against the petitioner that he was armed with a kalashnikov at the time of occurrence and he joined by his armed co-accused launched an attack on the complainant party by opening indiscriminate firing, as a result of which they gunned down Javed Amjad (deceased) and Faisal with fire arm injuries. It was the accused-petitioner who immediately after having raised lalkara, showered bullets by firing a burst through his kalashnikov at Javed Amjad (deceased) which landed on his forehead and right shoulder due to which he fell onto the ground badly wounded and died instantenously. Faisal, a companion of the complainant ran the race of his life during the occurrence but indiscriminate firing made by all the accused downed him with firearm injuries. The complainant has alleged in the F.I.R. That the accused party in sheer chaos, boarded their vehicles to flee the scene of occurrence and some of them got injured due to the firing of their accomplices. The petitioner having been arrested on 25-3-2011 led to the recovery of kalashnikov on 7-4-2011. The Investigating Officer had collected 130 crime empties of KK from the place of occurrence during spot inspection. The petitioner had been found involved in the occurrence during the course of investigation and placed in column No,3 of the challan.
10. It has been strongly contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that two persons Ehsan Ullah and Sarfraz the co-accused of the petitioner received firearm injuries during the same occurrence at the hands of their adversaries but this fact has almost been withheld by the complainant and that the cross version registered on 17-3-2011 at the instance of Zahid Mehmood (petitioner) stood the test of investigation with opinion of the Investigating Officer that the complainant party of F.I.R. Case were the aggressors and the accused mentioned therein had been aggressed upon. The initiation of aggression during an occurrence, can only be determined by the trial court after recording the evidence of the parties at trial. In cases of counter pleas/versions, the police should not arrogate itself to determine the subtle question of sparking off aggression by any of the two sides and it must be left for the trial court to look into. Each criminal case proceeds on its own peculiar facts and circumstances which ought not to be intermingled for the purpose of adjudication of bail plea of the accused. Even otherwise, the trial court shall conduct independent trials of the counter versions of both the parties and decide the same through separate independent judgments, though, by keeping the respective pleas of the parties in juxtaposition inter se. So far as the F.I.R. Case is concerned, it was the petitioner alone who authored all the firearm injures, six in number, on the body of Javed Amjad deceased and murdered him at the spot. Tile opinion of the A Investigating Officer, as noted above, does not bind the court in any manner. The injuries allegedly received by a couple of accused during the occurrence and submission of challan in the cross version are the circumstances which shall gather importance when the accused of the cross version would vie of their bails. The offence, the petitioner is confronted with, entails capital punishment. There are sufficient reasons to believe that the petitioner's case does not constitute need for further inquiry into his guilt.
11. For the foregoing reasons ,I am not inclined to accept this application which is dismissed accordingly.