ORDER ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J. - Through this criminal miscellaneous, the petitioners, namely, Muhammad Wajid, Muhammad Manazirand Muhammad Riasat, seek their post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 471, dated 14,08.2012 for an offence under Section 302/34, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Saddar Beroni, District Rawalpindi.
Briefly the prosecution story as narrated in the F.I.R, lodged on the written application of Inayat Hussain, are that he, his three sons and, one daughter are residents of village Mairan Kalan, Rawalpindi. Mohsan Ali his son is married and has a newborn daughter of 10 days. On 03.08.2012 at about 8:30 p.m. The grand-son of the complainant, namely, Faisal son of Jahandad went to the house of the complainant and took his son Mohsan Ali alongwith the infant daughter namely Aroos for registration of her name. At about 12:30 a.m. The complainant got information that his son Mohsan Ali had been murdered by Sajid Hussain, Manazir Hussain (petitioner No. 2), Riasat (petitioner No. 3), Wajid Hussain (petitioner No. 1) and Nadir Ali son of Bahadur Ali at about 9:30 p.m.
And dead-body of Mohsan Ali was present in the house of Nadir Khan.
The motive behind the occurrence is that Mst. Saira widow of Mohsan Ali was engaged to Wajid Hossain (petitioner No. 1) which came to an end and Mohsan Ali was married to Mst. Saira which nurtured the grudge. Bilal Arif son of Muhatnmad Arif and Shafqat Hussain son of Behrman witnessed the accused persons taking the deceased to their house. Hence this F.I.R.
3. The petitioners were arrested. They applied for their postarrest bail which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi vide order dated 23.09.2012. Hence this criminal miscellaneous.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is a delay of five hours in lodging the F.I.R.; that the statements of Shafqat and Bilal are not confidence inspiring as when they saw the petitioners taking the deceased they should have reacted by their immediate interference; that Nadir Khan the father of petitioner No. 1 was not only exonerated but also acquitted under Section 265-K, Cr.P.C.-; the recovery memo, reveals the blood-stained lady Shalwar and also a torn of shirt which do not corroborate with the motive part of the F.I.R.; that the police had declared the petitioners and Nadir Ali as innocent on the basis of sound evidence; that no recovery was effected from the petitioners; that no evidence is available to connect the petitioners with the alleged crime; that the petitioners were not found present at the spot; that in-fact the deceased had developed illicit relations with Mst. Saiqa were of Sajid and was found in compromising position which led to the alleged occurrence; that more than thirty-nine persons appeared before the investigating Officer in support of innocence of the petitioners. Places reliance on Ehsan Ullah v. The State (2012 SCM R 1137); Muhammad Maroor v. The State (2009 YLR 1952 (Karachi); Muhammad Akram v. The State (2005 YLR 683 (Lahore); Kashir v. The State (2005 P.Cr.L.J. 462 (Lahore); Muhammad Nawaz and others v. The State (2005 YLR 2512), Amir Ali and others v. The State (1984 SCM R 21); Bashir Ahmad v. The State (2005 P.Cr.L.J. 967 (Lahore)) and Amal Khan v. Liaqat Hayat and another (PLD 1998 Supreme Court 97) to argue that in absence of direct role the report of the police though not binding upon the Court, yet it cannot be ignored totally.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for the complainant submits that Nadir Khan-and the complainant are the real brothers; that Mst Saiqa made a statement on 16.08.2012 to support her version; that the defence version is not only improbable but also unnatural because in the situation so described Wajid Ali and Saiqa are also to be killed; that the collection of cellular phone data is merely a corroboration of piece of evidence which cannot be wholly relied upon to prove the guilt or innocence in a murder case. Places reliance on Muhammad Arshad and others v. The State and others (PLD 2011 Supreme Court 350) to argue that the job of the Investigating Office is just to collect evidence and not to conclude the findings of the investigation. Hence prays for dismissal of the post-arrest bail.
5. Learned Deputy -Prosecutor General corroborates the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the complainant with furthersubmission that the charge has been framed and the case is ripe for evidence and there is no occasion for grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record.
7. The petitioners are specifically nominated in the F.I.R. The last seen witnesses have duly implicated the petitioners in their statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C. The widow of the deceased as a prosecution witness has fully involved the petitioners in her statement recorded on 07,08.2012.
The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of this case. The petitioners are not alleged to have abetted for the commission of offence on the allegations of killing the deceased on the basis of last seen evidence.
The job of the Investigating Officer is to conduct investigation and to collect evidence, which is to be assessed by the competent Court who has to form opinion about the guilt Or innocence of the accused persons. I am also fortified by the esteemed judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as Muhammad Arshad and others v. The State and others (PLD 2011 S.C. 35Q) in this behalf. In this view of the matter since the petitioners are involved in a heinous offence entailing capital punishment and at this stage there is no reasonable j pound available to them to attract the provision of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C., therefore, their post-arrest bail petition is hereby dismissed.