' Khalid Hussain and Azhar Abbas, petitioners seek bail after arrest in case FIR No, 242 dated 20.05.2014 under Sections 302 and 34, PPC registered at Police Station Qadir Pur Ran, District Multan.
2. Prosecution story as mentioned in the FIR is that on 20.05.2014 at about 06:00 p.m. Father of complainant Manzoor Ahmad was going towards his house at Matti Tall while riding on his bicycle who was followed by complainant's sons Shahid and Muhammad Hasnain on a motorcycle. They allegedly heard sound of fire and saw present petitioners alongwith Talib co-accused fleeing away rashly towards motorway on their motorbike. The complainant found dead body of her father Manzoor Ahmad smeared with blood. In the FIR, complainant has suspected that present petitioners alongwith their co-accused have been committed the murder of deceased Manzoor Ahmad over a dispute of land.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. Rather the petitioners have been nominated in the FIR and have been attributed to have committed murder of deceased Manzoor Ahmad but no one has seen the petitioners. PWs have only mentioned that present petitioners alongwith their co-accused Talib were fleeing away on motorbike towards motorway. Record reveals that in two successive investigation conducted by the police present petitioners have been declared innocent having not committed the offence.
Police has filed report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. Before the Court of competent jurisdiction in which names of petitioners have been placed in Column No, 2 of said report.
5. It is contended by learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned APG that motive assigned in the FIR is relevant according to which deceased had purchased land measuring 29- kanals from one Khizar Hayat who is real, nephew of petitioner Khalid. It is alleged that petitioners alongwith co-accused have murdered Manzoor Ahmad to avoid the delivery of possession by said Khizar Hayat in favour of deceased. Reliance has been placed on 1986 SCM R 192 "Imtiaz Ahmad and others versus The State", 2002 PCr.LJ 1054 "Khial Gul and another versus The State and another", 2007 YLR 516 "Muhammad Ilyas versus The State" and NLR 2005 Criminal 356 "Bashir Khan versus State through Advocate General NWFP, Peshawar and another".
6. On the contrary, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on 2013 M LD 904 "Babar Masih versus The State and another", 2013 M LD 236 "Muhammad Farooq versus The State and another", 2013 YLR 216 "Muhammad Ashraf versus The State and another" and 2007 PCr.LJ 1218 Muhammad Nawaz versus The State."
7. The case laws as cited by learned counsel for complainant are distinguishable. Every case has its own merits and circumstances and cannot be acquainted with the case of present petitioners.
8. Admittedly the findings of the police are not binding upon this Court but same cannot be altogether ignored as in two successful V' investigations conducted police, by the present petitioners have been declared innocent and their names have been placed in Column No, 21 of the Challan.
9. A generalized role has been assigned to petitioners. There is no direct 'evidence available on record which may connect th petitioners in the commission of alleged offence as no PW has seen the petitioners having made firing upon the deceased. At this stage, it will G be difficult to ascertain as to which of the accused person had made firing upon the deceased. This aspect of the- matter could only be determined by the learned trial Court after recording of evidence of the parties. If complainant is not satisfied with the findings of the police, he has got the remedy of filing a private complaint. As per available record and material, the involvement of petitioners in the Commission of needs further probe even otherwise case of the petitioners calls for further inquiry within the ambit of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
10. For what has been discussed above, petitioners are admitted to bail after arrest subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
11. However, it is made clear that the above, findings are tentative in nature and shall have no bearing on the trial of the case.
(A.S) .