1. This is an application for bail. A case is registered against the petitioners alongwith two others under section 302/326/148/149, P.P.C. At Police Station Depalpur on 9th May, 1982. Aish Muhammad and Muhammad Nawaz petitioners were armed with sotas whereas Zulfiqar petitioner was stated to be armed, with a hatchet. They alongwith two other companions are stated to have caused injuries to the victim who has subsequently died. The main argument of learned counsel is that this matter has been investigated and reinvestigated by at least three Investi--gating Agencies and the, result was that with the exception of one Investigating Agency the other Investigating Agencies found the present Petitioners as innocent in the course of the investigation and they were placed in column No. 2. The result of these Investigating Agencies was that the two companions of the present petitioners were the alleged culprits.
2. I have gone through the police file. First the matter was investigated by Ataullah Khan, S.H.O, who submitted his report on 10th May, 1982 which was subsequently confirmed by Ali Abbas, D.S.P. The result of the investigation is that the present petitioners were not present at the time of the occurrence and that they were innocent. Thereafter, Ataullah Khan, S. I. Again submitted another report on 21st May, 1982 and it was also to the same effect. Then the matter was investigated by Raja Mehmad, S. I. Crimes Branch and he submitted his report dated 8th July 1982 in which he held that the present petitioners were not innocent but they were implicated. Eventually, the matter was re-investigated by Rashid Murtaza, D.S.P., who placed on record his final report dated Ist November 1982. He arrived at the conclusion that the present petitioners were innocent and that they were not present at the time of the commission of crime. He placed them in column No. 2. On the basis of these reports of different Investigating Officers about the same matter learned counsel argues that the case of the petitioners is of further inquiry and that in any case they have been placed in column No. 2 as they were found innocent in the course of the investigation. It is, therefore, contended that a case for bail is made out. Learned counsel for the complainant and learned Assistant Advocate-General on the other hand, argue that since their names occur in the F. I. R. And specific part has been attributed to them, no importance should be attached to the result of the Investigating Agency. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Shafi and another v. The State (1979 P Cr. L J 101). Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, has relied upon 11 authorities which are detailed in ground No. (v), para 6. Without com--menting on the quality of the evidence so far collected by the Investigating Agencies as against the present petitioners, in my view, a case for bail is made out and, therefore, the petitioners are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing securities in the sum of Rs. 20,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Okara. This petition is disposed of.