' ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J. --- The petitioner Ghulam Sarwar seeks post arrest bail case No,. 368/2012, dated 16.8.2012 offence under Sections 302/148/149, PPC at Police Station, Dinga, Gujrat.
2. The prosecution version as embodied in the FIR is that on 16.8.2012 at 8.00/9.00 a.m. In the area of Amra Kalan, the present petitioner alongwith other co-accused while armed with fire-arm weapons ommitted the murder of Muhammad Khan husband of the complainant by firing upon his face by burst of Kalashnikov. The motive is the previous enmity of murder.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely roped in this case; that there is delay of 7 hours in lodging the FIR; that co-accused namely Muhammad Azam and Lal Khan have been granted post arrest bail by ASJ Gurjat whereas bail of Khan Muhammad co-accused has been withdrawn vide order dated 10.11.2012 after when they were not required by the police, that the petitioner remained on physical remand for a period of 14 days and nothing was recovered from him; that the petitioner was not present at that time of occurrence and was present in his house and during investigation by the local police 62 persons of the locality supported the version of the petitioner and whereafter he was declared innocent; that the said investigation report was not further assailed before the Higher Forum of the police thus the same has attained finality. He places reliance upon Eshan Ullah vs. The State (2012 SCM R 1137), Syed Aman Ullah Shah Vs. The State and another (PLD 1996 SC 241), Zia ullah Vs. The State and another (2012 M LD 319), Muhammad Daud and another Vs. The State and another (2000 SCMR 173).
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the complainant assisted by learned APG submits that the FIR is promptly lodged with a specific allegation of causing fire-arm injury by Kalashnikov at the neck, face and head of the deceased into his death; that there is no probability of false implication of the petitioner in the commission of the offence; that 10 empties of Kalashnikov were recovered at the place of occurrence, which fact is sufficient to prove the presence of the petitioner at the place of occurrence; that a private complaint has been filed against all the accused in which cursory evidence of the PWs has been recorded by the Trial Court; that the statements of the witnesses made under Section 161, Cr.P.C. Are in line with the prosecution version. He places reliance upon Nazir Ahmad Vs. Muhammad Ismail and another (2004 SCMR 116) and Ehsan Akbar Vs. The State and 2 others (2007 P.S.0 (Crl.) 420). Lastly, he has prayed for the dismissal of the bail petition.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record.
6. The petitioner is nominated in the FIR with a specific role of causing fire-arm injuries on the neck, face and head of the deceased. He is principal accused and motive is also attributed to him of previous enmity of murder. The petitioner has actually participated as medical evidence corroborates with ocular account. Although the recovery was not effected from the person of the petitioner, yet being a corroborative piece of evidence its effect will be seen by the Trial Court after recording of evidence. The plea of alibi is an opinion of the police which is not binding upon the Courts especially when it is not substantiated on the basis of documentary evidence. A private complaint has already been filed before the Trial Court in which evidence is being recorded. I place my reliance on Nazir Ahmad vs. Muhammad Ismail and another (2004 SCM R 1160) and Ghulam Ahmad vs. The State (2013 SCM R 385), the case of the petitioner does fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1), Cr.P.C. This petition, therefore, is dismissed. Bail after arrest refused.