1. This is an application for bail on behalf of Basara in a case under section 148/302/149, P.P.C.
2. Registered against him and five others at Police Station Arifwala on 17th June, 1979. The allegations were that the petitioner alongwith others in futherance of their common object had caused the death of Ghulam and given injuries to Muhammad Amin the complainant. The petitioner was arrested on 19th June, 1979. He was allowed bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Sahiwal on 13th October 1979. On the application of the complainant, the same however, was cancelled by this Court vide Cr. Misc. No. 3784/B of 1979 on 7th November, 1979 and the petitioner was taken into custody.
2. Thereafter, the petitioner again applied for bail which was refused by the learned Session Judge on 5th December 1979. The petitioner came to this Court vide Cr. Misc. No. 34/B180 and this Court vide its order dated 26th January, 1980 had rejected the bail application with the observations that "since Basara petitioner is being challaned, the question of validity of summoning him in the Court does not arise and .The point of adjournment sine die has been settled by the Supreme Court in Shadi Khan' s case (PLD 1978 SC 38). From the perusal of this order, it appears that this fact that the petitioner having been found innocent had already been placed in column No. 2 of the Challan submitted before the learned Sessions Judge on 24th December 1979, was perhaps not brought to the notice of the Court and as such it was not discussed. The petitioner thereafter again approached the learned Sessions Judge and submitted an application praying for bail on the ground that he was found innocent and finally placed in column No. 2 of the challan. The learned Sessions Judge, vide his order dated 14th March, 1981, observed that the orders passed by the High Court on 7th November, 1979 and 26th January, 1980 have been gone into and in the presence of these orders, it is not possible for, me to reopen the matter at this stage particularly when the trial of the accused is likely to com--mence in the near future. The bail application is rejected". The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and the learned counsel for the complainant have not beets able to controvert this factual position. However they have opposed this petition vehemently and they submit that the finding of the Investigating Officer being a mere opinion is not binding on the Courts. They furher submit that the name of the peti--tioner is mentioned in the F. I. R. And specific role has been assigned to him and also submit that since the trial has commenced and the case has been fixed for hearing on 14th of July, 1981, it would not be in the fitness of things to allow bail to the petitioner.
3. I have considered the arguments submitted by the parties. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner having been found innocent his name stands placed in column No. 2 of the challan and this face was not considered by this Court in earlier petitions referred to above therefore, without making any expression lest it may prejudice the case of either party, I am of the view that it is a case of further inquiry anti a fit case for bail. . The petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.
4. 25,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C. Pakpattan.