' Through this petition, Rana Muhammad Tehseen, petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 121 dated 5-4-2013 under sections 302/324/353/427/186/109/201/34, P.P.C. Read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 later on sections 337-F(iii),(v)/337-A(i), P.P.C. And section 21(i) of the A.T.A. Were added and the case was registered at Police Station Aimnabad, Gujranwala on the statement of one Iftikhar Constable in respect of an occurrence which took place on 5-4- 2013 at 11-20 a.m. And the matter was reported same day at 1-45 p.m. In the F.I.R. It was stated that the petitioner being Investigating Officer of case F.I.R. 57/2013 under section 302/109/34, P.P.C. Was accompanying the accused of the said case along with police constables in an official vehicle when said vehicle was halted by four persons who were in a private car, the petitioner came out of the vehicle whereas the other persons remained inside the vehicle and the culprits made indiscriminate firing as a result of which three persons lost their lives and two received injuries. The complainant made supplementary statement on the next day i,e, 6-4-2013 in which he nominated four other persons as accused. He also made statement that Mian Asif who was assigned the role of conspiracy and abetment in the F.I.R. Was in fact driving car of the accused persons at the time of occurrence. During investigation, the Investigator collected telephonic data of the petitioner which showed his connection with co-accused Mian Asif and Liaqat who were assigned role of conspiracy and abetment. The petitioner was arrested on 23-7-2013 and presently he is in judicial lock-up.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no role of causing any injury is assigned to the petitioner. It is stated that Mian Asif accused was complainant of above said case F.I.R. No, 57 of 2013 of which the petitioner was investigator and Liaqat was his party men so the petitioner being Investigator of the said case was having contact with them. It is stated that there is no other evidence available with the prosecution and that the act of the petitioner alighting from official vehicle was natural as he was sitting on the front seat and had seen the assailants with firearms at the relevant time. Learned counsel states that the petitioner is chronic patient of Hepatitis-C and report of the doctor clearly indicates that he is a sick man and his presence in jail will rather affect other prisoners as such he is entitled to bail also on this score. Reliance is placed on 2000 SCM R 212 (Abbas v. The State) and 2006 SCM R 1225 (Peer Mukaram ul Haq v. National Accountability Bureau (NAB).
3. On the other hand learned Law Officer states that attitude of the petitioner of alighting from the car when so many persons were armed with firearms is indicative that he was in league with the culprits and that telephonic data collected by the Investigator connects the petitioner with the commission of crime so he is not entitled to bail as the complainant has fully implicated him.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. Two of the co-accused of the present petitioner, namely, Tauseef and Ali have been allowed bail by the learned trial Court. Role of the petitioner is that he was in league with the main accused and as such at the time of occurrence he left the official vehicle and he was not caused injuries by anyone so his involvement is apparent. The petitioner was admittedly Investigator of the earlier case F.I.R.
No,57 of 2013 of his police station. So his connection with the complainant of the said case i,e, Mian Asif over telephone cannot be considered as a role of being involved with the other co-accused.
Said two co-accused of the petitioner have now been allowed bail. Mobile data of these co- accused also connected with the main co-accused. Nothing has been recovered from the petitioner during investigation. Matter regarding involvement of the petitioner and the extent to which he is liable can only be determined after recording of evidence. Report of doctor indicates that the petitioner is a patient of hepatitis-C. He is also suffering from diabetes, neuropathic pain and other diseases. Such diseases cannot be properly taken care of in Jail. Keeping in view the facts of the case and condition of the petitioner we think that further detention of the petitioner in jail would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,4,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.