1. QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.---Behind bars since 30-11-2016, after dismissal of his plea for bail in anticipation to his arrest, Muhammad Jahangir Khan, petitioner herein, seeks admission to post arrest bail in a case registered vide FIR No,227, dated 19-8-2016 under Sections 324, 337-A(i), F(iii), L(a,b,c), C(i), C(ii), 148 & 149 of the of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 registered with Police Station Sohawa, District Jhelum on the complaint of Shoaib Kayani, wherein he is arrayed alongside six others for mounting a murderous assault, resulting into multiple injuries to Shoaib, Rehmat Jan, Affaq and Arshad, PWs within the area of Dohk Rajgan, District Jehlum. The petitioner as well as co- accused Muhammad Ali, Daman Gir were statedly armed with 12 caliber repeaters while the remainder carried sticks with them. Motive for the crime is an altercation that occurred few days before the incident between the female folks. The petitioner is attributed multiple fire shots to Shoaib PW landing on various parts of his body; according to medico legal certificate the witness received as many as 10 pallet injuries with identical similarities and characteristics which included burning, tattooing and blackening around their margins. Two other co-accused armed with the repeaters are assigned injuries to other co-accused.
2. During spot inspection, 6 casings of 12 caliber were secured from the spot whereas one of the accused namely Daman Gir, pursuant to a disclosure, led to the recovery of a 12-caliber gun.
3. Ishtiaq and Liaqat Ali were exonerated and though petitioner was shown present at the spot, however, the role of effective fire shots assigned to the petitioner, qua the complainant was negated by the Investigating Officer; a subsequent investigation verified the above conclusion; one of the witnesses namely Muhammad Arshad, during the course of investigation blamed one Muhammad Ali as being solely responsible for the shot through his statement dated 26-10-2016.
4. Heard. Record perused.
3. Ipse dixit by the police is certainly not binding upon the Court and restricted scope of tentative assessm ent prohibits an in-depth analysis of prosecution case, nonetheless, in the present case, view taken by no less than two Investigating Officers merits serious consideration. No less than three persons from the accused side are shown to have carried semi automatic repeaters; each of them is assigned multiple fire shots upon the PWs. In this backdrop, positions taken by the Investigating Officers that the petitioner arrived at the scene, empty handed and did not participate in the firing resulting into receipt of multiple pellet injuries by the witnesses cannot be viewed as preposterous as the identical nature of entry apertures support the hypothesis thus, argument that a wider net has since been cast cannot be brushed aside out of hand and as such, petitioner's culpability, for the present, calls for further inquiry. Even otherwise petitioner's continuous detention for the present is serving no useful purpose relative to investigation and he cannot be kept behind bars as a measure of punishment; grant of bail in criminal cases, barring those covered by prohibition structured on reasonable grounds within the contemplation of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, is an interlocutory arrangement as it merely envisages transfer of an accused, kept in custody at public expense to a surety so as to be produced as and when required by the Court; in case the prosecution succeeds to bring home charge at the end of the day, the interim freedom can be recalled in order to set the scales in balance while an unjustified forfeiture of freedom may not be possibly recompensed.
5. Consequently, Crl. Misc. No,2426-B of 2016 is allowed and petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bond in the sum of Rs.500,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. Needless to mention that observations made hereinbefore, being tentative, shall not impact upon the outcome of the case.