' ALTAF IBRAHIM QURESHI, J.---Through this single order, I intend to dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No,3027-B of 2012 (Umer. Draz and 2 others v. The State and another) and Criminal Miscellaneous No,3596-B of 2012 (Liaqat Ali and 2 others v. State and another), as both these petitions involve one and the same F.I.R. Bearing No,394, dated 26-12-2011, Police Station Saddar, District Rajanpur, in respect of offences under sections 302, 324, 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-F(v), 337- F(i), 34, 109, 148, 149, P.P.C. Wherein petitioners' namely Umer Draz, Intizar Hussain, Khushi Muhammad alias Afzal, Liaqat, Muhammad Tufail and Muhammad Asif, seek their post-arrest bail.
The allegation against the petitioners is that they by forming unlawful assembly, while armed with lethal weapons, committed the murder of Syed Muhammad Ilyas Shah and Sana as well as caused injuries to eight other persons including Ullahthe complainant, over dispute of possession of land.
2. At the very outset, learned counsel representing Umer Draz (petitioner No,1 in Criminal Miscellaneous No,3027-B of 2012) and Muhammad Tufail (Petitioner No, 2 in Criminal Miscellaneous No, 3596-B of 2012), do not press the petitions to their extent. Accordingly, both these petitions are dismissed to the extent of Umer Draz and Muhammad Tufail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contend that the place of occurrence, in fact, was the main cause of the incident, inasmuch as the complainant party came at the land belonging to Riasat to acquire its forcible possession, the co-accused of petitioners in self-defence caused injuries to the complainant party. It is contended that the petitioners were not present at the spot and they were falsely implicated in order to widen the net. It is further contended that during the course of investigation, the petitioners were declared innocent and discharge report was also prepared on 17-2-2012, which did not find favour with the learned Illaqa Magistrate. It has been argued that cross-version was also recorded against the complainant party under sections 447, 511, 148, 149, 109 P.P.C. And this being a case of two versions, would be determined by the learned trial Court after recording evidence. It is lastly contended that the co-accused of the petitioners namely Muhammad Rafique and Rana Kaleem, who were named in the F.I.R., have been allowed bail by this Court vide Criminal Miscellaneous No,1505-B of 2012 on 23-5-2012; hence, the petitioners are also entitled for the grant of bail on the principle of evenhanded justice.
4. On the, other hand, learned counsel for the complainant assisted by the learned Deputy Prosecutor General vehemently opposed this petition, inter alia, on the grounds that the petitioners along with their co-accused, while forming unlawful assembly, committed double murder and injured as many as eight persons causing firearm injuires; that the petitioners, due to mala fide .Of the police were declared innocent by police, which opinion is'not binding upon court and; that the prosecution story fully connects the present petitioners with the commission of heinous offence inasmuch as the medical evidence corroborates their role, as mentioned in the F.I.R. In support of the arguments, learned counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on Liaqat Ali v. The State (PLD 1994 Supreme Court 172) wherein two Investigating Officers had found the accused persons innocent but the honourable Supreme Court had not relied upon the opinion of two Investigating Officers.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
6. Admittedly, the petitioners namely Intizar Hussain, Khushi Muhammad, Liaqat and Muhammad Asif did not cause any injury to the deceased persons. During the course of investigation, the said petitioners were declared innocent not only by the local police but also by the Range Crime Branch. Although ipse dixit of police is not binding on court, but in peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it creates doubt about prosecution story and being relevant factor can alone be considered for the grant of bail. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the petitioners A have produced a coy of order dated 14-4-2012, whereby pre-arrest bail of the complainant of the present, case namely Fazal Karim and his co-accused Saeed Ahmad. Shah and Ghulam Mustafa; has been confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajanpur, in cross-version lodged by Raisat under sections 447/511/148/149/109, P.P.C. Now this case has become a case of two versions. The question as to which party was aggressor and Which party is aggressed upon requires further probe, 'which would be determined by the learned trial. Court after recording of evidence. In Shoaib Mehmood Butt v. Iftikhar-ul-Haq and 3 others (1996 SCM R 1845), it has been held:- "in case of counter-versions arising from the same incident, one given by complainant in F.I.R. And the other given by the opposite-party case-law is almost settled that such cases are covered for grant of bail on the ground of further enquiry as contemplated under section 497(2),' Cr.P.C. In such cases normally, bail is granted on the ground of further enquiry for the reason that the question as to which version is correct is to be decided by the trial Court which is supposed to record evidence and also appraise the same in order to come to a final conclusion in this regard. In cases of counter-versions, normally, plea of private defence is taken giving rise to question as to which party is aggressor and which party is aggressed. In the case of Fazal Muhammad v. Ali Ahmad (1976 SCM R 391) in cross-cases the High Court granted bail to the accused on the ground that there was probability of counter-version being true as some of the accused had received injuries including a grievous injury on the head of one accused. It was held by this Court that in such circumstances the High Court was right in granting bail and no interference was warranted. In the same context, reference can be made to the case of Mst. Shafiqan v. Hashim Ali and others (1972 SCM R 682)."
' It was held in another case titled, "Muhammad Shahzad Siddique v. The State and another" (PLD 2009 Supreme Court 58) that in a case of counter-version, if one party was granted bail, the other party would also become entitled to the same relief.
7. The injuries to P.Ws., attributed to the petitioners Intizar Hussain, Khushi Muhammad, Liaqat and Muhammad Asif, more or less fall under section 337-F(v), P.P.C.; thus, are not dangerous to life.
Even, nothing was recovered from the said petitioners. The common intention or to which extent, the petitioners are vicariously liable, would B be seen by the learned trial Court after recording of evidence. The petitioners were arrested on 4-2-2012 and since then they are in Jail, without any progress in trial, as not a single witness has been recorded so far by the learned trial Court, and the petitioners cannot be kept in Jail for indefinite period.
8. So far as the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the complainant on PLD 1994 Supreme Court 172, supra, to urge that opinion of Investigating Officer holding the petitioners innocent twice cannot be made basis for grant of bail, is concerned, suffice it to observe that the said case-law is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly, on the point of case of two versions.
9. In view of the above, this petition is accepted to the extent of the petitioners namely Intizar Hussain, Khushi Muhammad alias Afzal, Liaqat and Muhammad Asif are admitted to post-arrest bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,200,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.