SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---The complainant, Syed Ghazanfar Ali Gillani has alleged in FIR No,297/15, dated 31.8.2015, under section 302/34, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Ferozewala, district Gujranwala, that his paternal uncle Syed Mohsin Ali Shah Gillani, who retired as a Superintendent, was widely respected and acknowledged as a Peer and his dera was frequently visited by his disciples; it was at about 8.00 p.m. on 31.8.2015, when he (complainant) and his companions were present at his uncle's dera, two unknown persons, aged 25/30, clad in trousers and shirts, reached there, being armed with rifles and recklessly fired at Syed Mohsin Ali Shah Gillani, due to which he and his follower Aftab Ahmad got badly wounded; the accused sprinted towards the main gate while firing; he and his companions picked the injured-duo and still moved towards DHQ hospital, Gujranwala, when they both succumbed to the injuries; this occurrence was witnessed by him and his associates Syed Tahir Ali Shah, Syed Mobeen-ul-Hassan, Saif-ur-Rehman and Rana Muhammad Aslam in the light that brightened the dera then.
2. Following two paragraphs from 3 to 4 have been borrowed verbatim from order dated 7.10.2016 passed by this court in Crl. Misc.No,8860-B/2016, the petitioner's pre-arrest bail application, for they depicted the attending facts of the case.
3. Mst. Sidra Batool, a real daughter of the deceased-Peer, joined the investigation and rendered a statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. on 8.12.2015, whereby she contended that her father and the follower Aftab Ahmad had been fired at and badly injured by Wajid Ali alias Waju and Muhammad Farooq at about 8.00 p.m. on 31.8.2015 at the shrine, within the view of many, including herself, Habib Ahmad Buttar, Syed Mobeen-ul-Hassan, Saif-ur-Rehman and Rana Muhammad Aslam; a few days thereafter, Muhammad Farooq Ata and Naveed Ahmad disclosed to her that they stood opposite the dera of. Iqbal Buttar alias Bala Kaatli (petitioner) at about Shamvela, when Syed Ali Zain-ul-Abidin and Syed Ghazanfar Ali Shah entered the said dera, followed by the accused- petitioner and his gunmen, Wajid alias Waju and Muhammad Farooq, who too entered therein and they all sat on the chairs; it got a bit dark soon thereafter, so they drew near the dera's outer door and heard that Iqbal Buttar (petitioner) commanded the people around that Syed Mohsin Ali Shah Gillani stiffly opposed him in the local body's election and if he was not removed from the scene, he could not win the chairman's election; he asked Syed Ghazanfar Ali Shah, the complainant of FIR, and Syed Ali Zain-ul-Abidin to help him finish Syed Mohsin Ali Shah Gillani (deceased) through his gunmen, Wajid alias Waju and Muhammad Farooq; further exhorted that he would supply the arms as needed by his gunmen and send them abroad, if they succeeded in the mission; thereafter the shrine would be shared by Syed Ali Zain-ul-Abidin and Syed Ghazanfar Ali Shah as Gaddi Nasheen; he prompted Syed Ghazanfar Ali Shah to be the complainant of the murder case of Syed Mohsin Ali Shah Gillani and lodge it against the unknown persons, so that the truth did notice the daylight; he assured his addressees of every possible financial help, even after the occurrence; Syed Ghazanfar Ali Shah was her first paternal cousin and Syed Ali Zain-ul-Abidin, a person from the same brethren, who grudged against her father as he did not include them in the affairs of the shrine; the crime had been committed by Wajid alias Waju and Muhammad Farooq on the abetment of Iqbal Buttar alias Iqbal Kaatli (petitioner), Syed Ghazanfar Ali Shah (complainant of FIR) and Syed Ali Zain-ul- Abidin. Farooq Ata and Naveed Ahmad supported the statement of Mst. Sidra Batool vide their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C., recorded on 8.12.2015.
4. It did not finish here, as one Muhammad Mansha joined investigation on his own on 26.4.2016 and stated before the police that he was present at his dera sometimes before, when Syed Ghazanfar Ali Shah (complainant), Ali Shah, Muhammad Iqbal (petitioner) and his gunmen came there and Muhammad Iqbal said that Peer Mohsin Shah had ably brought all of his opponents close to each other, which made it a strong group of his, so it was difficult for him to win the election, until he (Peer Mohsin Shah) was murdered; he (petitioner) persuaded Ghazanfar Ali Shah and Ali Shah, the relatives of the Peer, to lodge a case, when needed, against some unknown persons, so as to save the real murderers; he promised to make them Gaddi Nashin after the job was done; he lured his gunmen, Wajid alias Waju and Muhammad Farooq to murder Peer Mohsin Shah and he would send them abroad thereafter; Muhammad Mansha further exclaimed that he along with Wajid alias Waju and Muhammad Farooq, being clad in police uniforms, went to murder Peer Mohsin Shah, but they failed and came back; on the next day, they, however, finished Syed Mohsin Shah, as Wajid alias Waju and Muhammad Farooq fatally fired at him and he stood outside the door being armed; Muhammad Iqbal (petitioner) paid the money-agreed to them and he came back to his house; on the next day, the followers of Syed Mohsin Ali Shah staged a rally and on seeing it, Muhammad Iqbal (petitioner) asked All Shah to take Wajid alias Waju and Muhammad Farooq to some far-off place, whereafter they went abroad; as planned, Ghazanfar All Shah reported the crime against the unknown persons; he maintained that on the condemnation of his conscience, he had told the whole truth. He also tendered a statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. before the learned magistrate at Gujranwala on the same line, on 28.4.2016.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that the petitioner's application for bail before arrest (Crl. Misc.No,8860-B/2016) was dismissed by this court vide order dated 7.10.2016 with a few crucial observations, though tentative, on the merits of the case, that still held the field firmly, hence, difficult to be overlooked even at the stage of dealing with his post-arrest bail application, notwithstanding the principle that considerations for both kinds of bail pleas are genuinely different. The circumstances of the case that existed before the petitioner's arrest and those after his arrest, are closely stitched inter-se and they permeated one another inseparably. It has been observed in the said order that:- "The riddles of murder of Syed Mohsin All Shah Gillani might not have been unravelled, but for the statements of Mst. Sidra Batool, real daughter of the deceased, recorded on 8.12.2015, Farooq Ata and Naveed Ahmad under section 161, Cr.P.C. recorded the same day and that of Muhammad Mansha under section 161, Cr.P.C. made on 26.4.2016 and his last on the trot under section 164, Cr.P.C., on 28.4.2016 before a learned Magistrate at Gujranwala, whereby they all stated about behind the-scene conspiracy, allegedly hatched up by Iqbal Buttar alias Iqbal Kaatli (petitioner), whereby he encouraged and induced his co-accused in the manner, as detailed hereinbefore, to dispose of Syed Mohsin Ali Shah Gillani, a retired superintendent-turned-spiritual leader, in whom he saw a potent political adversary, who could probably dash his hopes of winning the local body's election, for the slot of chairman."
It was further observed in the said order that:- "The delayed statement of Mst. Sidra Batool, whereby she disclosed the theory of conspiracy, allegedly masterminded by the accused-petitioner, might not altogether be brushed aside, on the factum of delay alone, as she, right from day one, was apparently flanked by her nears and dears, including Syed Ghazafar Ali Shah Gillani, her real paternal cousin, the complainant of the case and a quartet of the eye-witnesses, all reportedly her relatives, hence, she could hardly imagine any foul or tricky play on their part, which impression she remained under for a good number of days, till the thick hazy layer enveloping the incident of her father's murder started subsiding, as firstly, Farooq Ata and Naveed Ahmad opened the lips and told her about the bits of hidden story of her father's death and, secondly, when Muhammad Mansha rendered a self-implicating statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. on 26.4.2016, followed by his statement under section 164, Cr.P.C., on 28.4.2016, whereby he reiterated the previous stance and labelled himself beside two others, Wajid alias Waju and Muhammad Farooq as the killers on the spot under the commandment of Iqbal Buttar alias Iqbal Kaatli, the accused-petitioner. His statements, by no means, can be considered self-exculpatory at this stage. The delay occurred in making the said statements by him (Muhammad Mansha) and Mst. Sidra Batool may be analyzed in better terms by the trial court at some appropriate stage of the events."
6. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 27.10.2016, after dismissal of his pre-arrest bail application (Cr1. Petition No,1252-L of 2016) by the apex court on 27.10.2016 as withdrawn, but not before it stood argued at some length by his learned counsel. The investigation of the case was almost complete, when he was apprehended by the police. His position of being guilty of the offence alleged had been recorded by the investigating officer on 9.4.2016. After his arrest, he merely stated, in hiccups, on 28.10.2016 that the appointed-killers, Wajid alias Waju and Muhammad Farooq had visited him after the occurrence and they went away on his advice by leaving their rifles behind, which he had thrown in a canal. Two witnesses, Muhammad Naseer and Muhammad Irfan were recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. in this regard on the said day. He was sent to judicial lock-up on 29.10.2016 and report under section 173, Cr.P.C. was prepared against him by the SHO on 1.11.2016, with his name in its column No,3. The facts of the case gradually unfurled and consistently incriminated the petitioner in terms, that he masterminded the crime, provided arms and ammunition to the appointed murderers, plotted a plot and planted Syed Ghazanfar Ali Gillani, a close kin of Mst.Sidra Batool, as the complainant of a fake story showing two unknown persons to have murdered Syed Mohsin Ali Shah Gillani, schemingly persuaded Syed Ghazanfar Ali Gillani to remove spiritual leader from the way for winning the local bodies election and made him (complainant) believe that he would be next ,Gaddi Nashin of the shrine after the earlier one was done away with. Everything as regards the mentioned facts existed on the record on 7.10.2016, when his pre-arrest bail application was dismissed.
7. About his criminal record, learned Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab has submitted that the petitioner is involved in forty three (43) cases of mixed nature, though the earlier order showed this number as twenty six (26), but it was an incomplete report then; many of the cases, he was involved in were heinous in nature. It looked shocking, that his list of cases included ten that of murder, three of attempted murder cum terrorist acts, four of attempted murder alone, three of dacoity, five of criminal trespass and theft, eight under the Arms Ordinance, 1965, two of abduction, two under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979, three of forgery, three of mischief and criminal intimidation. His involvement in so many criminal cases may lead to a tentative conclusion that he is a habitual offender, who perhaps respected the law scantily. With growing number of criminal cases against his name, he probably turned a schemer and allegedly showed his potential in this case by rotating the things around.
8. There is another important factor, which related to self-implicating statement of his co-accused Muhammad Mansha, noted herein above, which may equally be read and used as an incriminating circumstance against him even at this stage. Reference in this regard may be made to Ghulam Ahmad Chishti's case, reported as 2013 SCM R 385, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held:- 'The statement of a person who was initially a co-accused alone may not be sufficient to convict someone but in terms of Article 43 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, it can be used as a circumstantial piece of evidence even at bail stage to form a prima facie view about the involvement of a person."
In the case of Mamaras, reported as PLD 2009 SC 385, the apex court held as follows:- "Person abetting the commission of an offence was liable to the same punishment which was prescribed for person committing the same i,e, a sentence of death in the present case---Even if it be presumed that the judicial confessions made by some of the co-accused against the accused were the only evidence against him, he would still not qualify for his release on bail, as according to Art.143 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, a judicial confession made by a co- accused was a perfectly valid piece of evidence which could be considered and used as circumstantial evidence against a co-accused of such a confessing accused."
9. There hardly exists any reason to believe that the petitioner's case fell within - the ambit of further inquiry as enshrined in section 497(2), Cr.P.C. He has been found involved in the occurrence during the course of investigation and placed in column No,3 of the challan. The offence, he is pitted against, entailed capital punishment. Not a fit case for grant of post-arrest bail. Dismissed.