MEHMOOD MAQBOOL BAJWA, J. - Seeks anticipatory bail in private complaint lodged at the instance of respondent No. 2 under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station, Sabzi Mandi, District Gujranwala.
2. Respondent No. 2 being complainant lodged the Crime Report No. 148 of 2011 registered under Sections 02, 324 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station, Sabzi Mandi, District Gujranwala against the present petitioners in which after conclusion of investigation they were declared innocent prompting the complainant to file private complaint with the allegation of murder of Muhammad Zahid and Adeel Ahmad. The present petitioners surrendered before the learned Trial Court in the private complaint and made an application for anticipatory bail which was declined by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala on 22.10.2011.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are facing the trial in private complaint and surrendered before the learned Trial Court, and showed their intention to submit bail bonds but the learned Trial Court did not allow them to submit bail bonds and dismissed their application for anticipatory bail in view of the rule of law enunciated in Luqman Ali v. Hazaro and another (2010 SCM R 611). Contended that since the petitioners were declared innocent during the course of investigation in the State case, who were placed in column No. 2 of the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, therefore, the learned Trial Court dismissed the application on erroneous presumption. Reliance was placed upon Muhammad Muddasar v. The State and others (2011 SCM R 1513), Opposing the application, the learned counsel for the complainant maintained that petitioners are involved in a double murder case, who were declared innocent by the police with malice in fact.
Submitted that sufficient incriminating evidence is available on record to connect the petitioners in the offence referred to in the private complaint and as such are not entitled to the concession of bail.
4. The petitioners were declared innocent in the State case and were summoned in the private complaint being respondents. Their application was declined in view of rule of law enunciated in Luqman Ali v. Hazaro and another (2010 SCMH 611) but keeping in view the declaration of innocence in their favour and summoning of the petitioners in the private complaint while placing reliance upon Muhammad Muddasar v. The State and others (2011 SCM R 1513) the application for anticipatory bail is hereby allowed subject to furnishing bail bonds on the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.