This is a petition for anticipating bail in a murder case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, in addition to the factors noted in my order dated 28th June, 1978 which should be read as part of this order, pointed out that 18 lawyers appeared before the police in support of the plea of alibi of the petitioner ; and that the police was also informed about the 2 important witnesses of alibi mentioned on the last hearing-one, an Additional Settlement Commissioner and the other a responsible Army officer. But they have not yet been examined-One of them met a serious accident and the other is on leave. He has also pointed out that Muhammad Anwar, Sub-Inspector of Police, who was accompanied by police force, has contradicted the prosecution version about the occurrence-- particularly time thereof.
2. The investigation at present is being conducted by a D. S. P. From a different circle. He is present today and states that the lawyers have supported the plea of alibi of the petitioner.
3. Learned Assistant Advocate-General has not opposed the con--firmation of bail. He has pointed out a statement made by Manzoor Hussain, brother of the deceased before the police. I have perused the same from the police diary. According to the said statement, Manzoor Hussain reached the spot immediately on hearing the alarm that Abdul Ghafoor had been hit by a shot.
The deceased, according to him, was still lying in the Chowk. He put him on a Charpai and the deceased told him that Rahma and Safarash had fired at him. This, it appears from the statement of Manzoor Hussain recorded by the police, was the first version of the deceased ; but it is also mentioned in the said state--ment of Manzoor Hussain that on the next day Abdul Ghafoor informed him in the hospital that there were several other persons in addition to Rahma and Safarash who were responsible in this behalf (the expression used is (JO IS KO MARNWEY WALEY THEY). He also mentioned that in addition to the named persons, including the present petitioner there were several others whom he did not identify.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant (Qurban Ali. Who is stated to be a relation of the deceased), has opposed the con--firmation of bail. His main contention is that it would be premature to confirm the bail at this stage. He has informed the Court that serious complaints having been made against the local police the investigation has been transferred to the Crimes Branch and that the investigation and results thereof by the Crimes Branch should be awaited.
Learned counsel has also tried to refute the points raised from the peti--tioner's side.
5. After hearing all the learned counsel I am of the view that the material is enough to decide the question of bail and the results of the fresh investigation, if any, by the Crimes Branch, need not be awaited. The present investigator is of the rank of D. S. P. And is the heat of a different circle though in the same district. His investigation cannot be described as the investigation by the local police against which as stated complaint has been made. The facts stated above bring the case of the petitioner within subsection (2) of section 497, Cr. P. C. At present there do not appear to be reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner has committed the offence he is accused of, but there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry. I accordingly accept the petition and confirm the interim bail granted to the petitioner on 28th June, 1978.