Through this single order, I intend to dispose of three bail petitions; first filed by the petitioner namely Sajjad i,e, Crl. Misc. No, 2822-B of 2017 and the second filed by the petitioner namely Mumtaz i,e, Crl. Misc. No, 2881-B of 2017, and the third filed by Muner alias Ameen i,e, Crl. Misc. No, 6073-B of 2017 seeking post-arrest bail as all the matters have arisen out of same FIR No, 264/2016, dated 06.5.2016, registered with the Police Station Alpa, District Multan in respect of the offences under Sections 302, 324, 109, 34, PPC.
2. As per FIR lodged on the statement of Riaz Hussain complainant, it is alleged that 06.5.2016, the complainant along with his uncle on a motorcycle and his brother Ijaz and father on other motorcycle were proceedings towards their home after offering prayer to one of their relatives at Sanbhal. At about 5.00 p.m. when they reached near village Ghallu four persons namely Ameen, Sajjad, Muhammad Amir and Muhammad Aslam armed with fire-arm weapons riding on two motorcycles intercepted them by raising lalkaras. In the meanwhile, co-accused Muhammad Amir caught hold his father and inflicted punch blow on his face while co-accused Amin fired a shot upon his father which landed on the left shin of his father. His brother Muhammad Ijaz came forwarded to rescue his father, Sajjad fired a shot with his fire-arm weapon on his right thigh.
Thereafter, accused extended a threat if any other person came near them, who will also face same consequences. After departure of accused from the place of occurrence, the complainant and P.Ws. removed the injured to the hospital but Muhammad Ijaz succumbed to the injuries in the way to the hospital. Thereafter, petitioner Mumtaz Mussain was implicated in this case through supplementary statement with the role of abetment.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. After perusal of the record, it is reflected that the petitioners Sajjad and Munir alias Amin are nominated in the FIR with specific role of causing fire-arm injuries on the person of deceased Ijaz and injured P.W. Hazoor Bakhsh and petitioner Mumtaz through supplementary statement with the allegation of abetment. Contrary to the above, during the investigation, it has been found that fire- arm injury on the person of deceased has been caused by Mumtaz instead of Sajjad. The recovery of gun on the pointation of petitioner Mumtaz also supplement the investigation. Meaning thereby, it is a case of two versions one, one advanced by the prosecution and the other by the Investigating Agency, which makes the case of the petitioner is one of further inquiry in the light of wisdom drawn in the case titled "Ehsan Ullah vs. The State" (2012 SCMR 1137) wherein it has been held as under: "This shows that in the present case the prosecution itself has two versions vis-a-vis the petitioner, first of the complainant party according to which the petitioner was present at the spot and had resorted to firing and second of the investigating agency according to which the petitioner was not present at the spot and he was abetting his co-accused from behind the scene. All these considerations surely render the case against the petitioner one of further inquiry into his guilt."
5. As regards argument of learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant and injured witness fully implicated the petitioners, suffice it to say that the investigation has not yet been challenged by the complainant and thus the same has attained finality. It is also noticed that co- accused Muhammad Amir and Muhammad Aslam have also been found innocent during the course of investigation. In the attending circumstances, when most part of the prosecution story had been found to be false, the question of accused's guilt required further inquiry in view of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Abid v. The State and others (2012 SCMR 647) wherein it has been held as under:-- "5. Having heard petitioner's learned counsel at some length, we found that since the major part of the prosecution story has been found to be false; all the co-accused are on bail and one of the abductees have exonerated the petitioner, the question of petitioner's guilt would required further inquiry."
6. All these facts, when seen together, lead to this Court to draw an inference that prima facie, prosecution has no sufficient incriminating material to connect the petitioners with the commission of alleged offence and the same definitely leave room for further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner. The petitioners' case, therefore, is covered under sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry into his guilt. Guidance is sought from Qamar alias Mitho v. The State and others (PLD 2012 S.C. 222).
7. The petitioners are behind the bars since their arrest. The investigation is completed and petitioners are no more required by the police for the purpose of further investigation. Further incarceration of the petitioners would not serve any useful purpose. Reliance can be placed on the cases of Syed Khalid Hussain Shah versus The State and another (2014 SCMR 12) and Imtiaz Ahmed versus The State (PLD 2009 Lahore 14).
8. For the above reasons, these petitions are allowed and the petitioners are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 5,00,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. The observations made above are tentative in nature and will have no effect upon any proceedings during the trial. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.