' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,616 of 2008 dated 13-8-2008 under sections 324, 353, 186, 224, 225, 148, 149 P.P.C. Read with section 13 of Arms Ordinance (XX), 1965 lodged at the instance of Muhammad Attique Butt, DSP/SDPO, Mian Channu, District Khanowal.
2. Precisely the story contained in the F.I.R. Is that the complainant along with scores of policemen, armed with sophisticated weapons conducted a raid on the house of Amer Sher, Alam Sher and Shakoor, the accused of case F.I.R. No,261 of 2008 dated 22-6-2008 under section 395, P.P.C., Police Station City Mian Chunno; and besieged it from all sides in the darkness of the night and waited for the day light to appear; they knocked at the door of the house of the accused at 6-10 a.m.
Whereupon, a couple of persons ran in the courtyard of the house raising alarm and asking Amer Sher, Alam Sher and Shakoor to runaway, whereupon, Amer Sher, Alam Sher and Shakoor made straight firing upon the police party so as to breach the police cordon; they attempted to escape through door-less passages of the house but could not do so; the police warned them to surrender but they kept firing on the police party and made .a desperate effort to decamp through a passage on the western side but that too had been sealed by the police whereupon, they directly showered bullets at the police party who took refuge behind a Pakka water course (Khada) and positioned themselves to counter attack; the firing made by the accused hit the water course and the police returned the firing in their self-defence which felled Amer Sher, Alam. Sher in injured condition who died instantaneously, whereas, their third companion Shakoor managed good his escape and disappeared in the fields; Muhammad Nawaz and Allah Yar were captured by the police at the end of the encounter. A large number of weapons and massive ammunition was found lying close to the dead bodies of Alam Sher and Amer Sher; one buffalo, case property of a dacoity case was also recovered from the place of occurrence.
3. Mst. Rupiyya Bibi mother of the two deceased got registered a cross version on the same day in which she alleged that accused Attique Butt, DSP, along with Sardar Gujjar (petitioner) his son Umair Sardar and some other private persons, aided by many police officials had trespassed into her house, overpowered her sons Alam Sher and Amer Sher where, DSP, Attique Butt fired with his rifle on the head of Amer Sher deceased at the lalkara of Rehm Din; Sardar (petitioner) made two fire shots with his rifle on the back of Amer Sher, Umair accused fired With his rifle which hit Amer Sher; when Alam Sher ran to save the life of his brother, Rehm Din fired with, his rifle at his thigh, Noor Muhammad Inspector fired with his rifle which landed on the his area of Alam Sher, Muhammad Zameer S.-I. Also fired at the chest of Alam Sher, thereafter, Umair, Mazhar and Rehm Din made heavy firing at the spot as a result of which Alam Sher, Amer Sher succumbed to the injuries at the spot; the accused also stole a buffalo, Motorcycle Yamaha, two phones and cash etc. From her house. The motive behind the occurrence was that Rehm Din and Muhammad Akram had bribed Attique Butt DSP to avenge the murder of their brother and also to take revenge of the land dispute.
4. Mst. Ruqaiyya Bibi being dissatisfied with the investigation of the case field a private complaint against 47 persons under sections 302, 324, 449, 337H-2, 396, 148, 149 P.P.C. Read with sections 155, 156 Police Order, 2002, wherein, she nominated Sardar (petitioner) as respondent/accused No,2 along with others, with the same charge, as alleged in her version before the police.
5. Mst. Najma Bibi, the widow of Alam Sher deceased moved separate application for registration of independent criminal case against aforementioned persons for the murder of Alam Sher, Amer Sher but she did not nominate Umair and Sardar as accused of the occurrence. She too being aggrieved of the investigation filed a private complaint against 40 respondents which did not include the petitioner Sardar. Both the above said Private complaints are pending adjudication. A private complaint has also been filed by said Muhammad Attique Butt.
6. A judicial inquiry was also conducted in this case by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Pakpattan who concluded the same vide inquiry report dated 11-9-2008 wherein the name of the petitioner does not find mention.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case due to malice and ulterior motive of the complainant of the cross version; that a judicial inquiry was conducted by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Pakpattan wherein no role has been ascribed to the petitioner; that Mst. Ruqaiyya Bibi burdened Muhammad Attique, DSP/SDPO with the allegation that his fire landed on the head of Amer Sher deceased, both in her statement before the police and in the private complaint but she and her witnesses gave a clean chit to the said accused in his bail petition bearing Criminal Miscellaneous No,1564-8 of 2010 on 22-2-2010; Mst. Najma Bibi, in her private complaint, has not nominated the petitioner as an accused of this case; the medical evidence is inconsistent with the eye-witness account; lastly contends that the petitioner's case calls for further inquiry within the meaning of section 497 subsection (2) of Cr.P.C.
8. Learned Addl: Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed grant of bail to the petitioner on the point that he is named in the cross case and in the private complaint, with a specific role of causing firearm injuries on the back of Amer Sher deceased; the prosecution witnesses fully support the story contained in the cross version and in the private complaint; that the petitioner and his co-accused have committed a gruesome and barbaric act during the course of which they murdered two youthful sons of Mst. Ruqaiyya Bibi, complainant; that the petitioner played pivotal role in the whole episode and it was he, who had master-minded the whole occurrence and aided by the police officials, committed worst degree of oppression that the private complaint filed by the widow of Alam Sher deceased is collusive in nature and she has malafidely and maliciously omitted the name of the petitioner from the list of the respondent-accused in her private complaint; that the petitioner does not merit release on bail as his case does not call for further inquiry; the trial has- commenced and after framing of charge the case is fixed for recording of prosecution evidence; the P.Ws. In fact were present on the last date of hearing before the trial court but the petitioner and his co-accused did not produce their counsel malafidely and the case was adjourned.
9. Arguments heard. Record perused.
10 ' The petitioner has been charged with specific role of causing firearm injuries on the back of Amer Sher deceased which is supported by the medical evidence. Mst. Ruqaiyya Bibi, being aggrieved of the investigation conducted by the police filed a private complaint wherein she has reiterated her version qua the aforesaid specific role of the petitioner. The private complaint filed by Mst. Najma Bibi widow of Alam Sher deceased is of little help to the petitioner as his case is not at par with that of his co-accused Umair, against whom Ruqaiyya Bibi had made certain improvements in her private complaint. Muhammad Attique Butt, DSP/SDPO who allegedly, authored fatal injury on the body of Amer Sher deceased was admitted to post arrest bail by my learned brother Mr. Justice Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry, J. On 22-2-2010 as Mst. Ruqaiyya Bibi appeared before the court to make a statement of compromise with the petitioner in the company of two P.Ws. The Investigating Officer has formulated the opinion that the petitioner had taken part in the incident at the relevant time. The trial has commenced and it is at the stage of recording of prosecution evidence. In fact B complete set of eye-witnesses was present before the learned trial court for recording their statements on 26-5-2010 but the learned defence counsel did not appear and the case was adjourned. The dictum of consistency is not applicable in respect of the petitioner as he unlike his co-accused Umair, has been saddled with liability of a specific role qua Amer Sher deceased, both in the cross version and in the private, complaint. I am not impressed by the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner as the case of the accused petitioner does not constitute need for further inquiry into his guilt under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Prima facie, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner has committed the offence alleged against him. His case falls within. A the mischief of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
11For the forgoing reasons, I am not inclined to accept instant petition which is dismissed accordingly.
' As the trial has commenced, so the learned trial court is directed to expedite the proceedings of the trial and conclude the same within five months from the date of receipt of the order of this court.