This is a petition for bail submitted by Muhammad Saleh petitioner who is involved in the offences punishable under section 302/307/452/ 148/149, P.P.C. Arising out of F. I. R. No. 156 dated 16th August, 1981 of Police Station, Sharaqpur Sharif, district Sheikhupura.
2. On the statement of Ghulam Hussain, the first informant, a case was registered by Sharaqpur Police at 11.45 p.m. Against Muhammad Saleh petitioner and four others namely Muhammad Siddique, Ihsan-ul--Haq, Ghulam Rasul and Asghar Ali. It is alleged that the petitioner and his co- accused while armed variously i.e. Petitioner with -12 bore gun, Siddique with a carbine, Ihsan with a 12. Bore gun, Ghulam Rasul with a carbine, and Asghar with a sota trespassed into the orchard of the complainant party and lodged attack on Zahid Hussain deceased and his brother Ghulam Hussain, the first informant. Muhammad Saleh, the petitioner, allegedly raised lalkara and fired at Zahid Hussain hitting him on the right hip. Siddique also fired with his carbine causing injury on the left eye of first informant while Ihsan and Ghulam Rasul fired ineffectively. The F. I. R. Was lodged while Zahid Hussain was still alive. He died subsequently on 23rd August, 1981 in Mayo Hospital, it: Lahore and the offence under section. 302, P. P. C. Was also added.
3. Prior to the lodging of the aforesaid F. I. R. No. 156 of 1981, F. I. R.In the cross-case bearing No. 155 of 1981 dated 16th August, 1981 was lodged at the same Police Station by Farooq Ahmad, a nephew of Muhammad Saleh petitioner at 7.00 p.m. Alleging that he (Farooq Ahmad) and his cousin Ihsan Ullah, the son of Muhammad Saleh petitioner were waylaid by Zahid Hussain and others near their orchard. Farooq Ahmad was caused injuries with a carbine by Zahid deceased. Ihsan Ullah ran back to the house and brought a gun. He fired in self-- defence hitting Zahid Hussain.
4. After the death of Zahid Hussain, no proceedings with regard to F. I. R. No. 155 of 1981 lodged by Farooq Ahmad appear to have been taken and Ihsan Ullah lodged a complaint in the Court of competent jurisdiction. The learned Magistrate Section 30, vide his order dated 7th May, 1982 has summoned Ghulam Hussain and Zahid Hussain to stand trial for an offence under section 307, P. P.
C.
5. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that this is a case of two versions and it is yet to be seen as to which of the two versions is correct and whether complainant party was the aggressor or the petitioner's party is responsible for aggression. It is thus stated to be a base of further enquiry within the meaning of section 497 (2) of Cr. P. C.
6. It is next maintained that in the F. I. R. Lodged against the petitioner and his co-accused injuries on the person of the members of the petitioner party have not been explained whereas the injuries to the deceased and Ghulam Hussain have been explained in the F. I. R. Earlier lodged in the cross- case by Farooq Ahmad.
7. It has also been vehemently argued on behalf of the petitioner that during the course of investigation he pleaded that he was not present at the scene of occurrence and raised a plea of alibi. In support of his plea, he produced at least 20 persons including officials like Patwari, Girdawar and Court officials. The Investigating Officer also found him to be innocent but on account of insistence of the complainant party, his flame has not been entered in column No. 2 although it is mentioned in the report under section 173, Cr. P. C. That his (Petitioner's) participation in the crime was doubtful.
8. The learned counsel for the State has argued that a specific role and fatal injury to the deceased have been attributed to the petitioner. He was, therefore, not entitled to be released on bail.
9. As already observed, this is a case of two versions. A member of the petitioner's party has also received injuries which of course have not been explained by the complainant party. In Fazal Muhammad v. Ali Ahmad and 3 others (1976 SCMR 391) the Supreme Court declined to interfere in a case in which accused were enlarged on bail by the High Court, as there was a counter-version and the probability of counter-version having some truth could not be excluded.
10. The petitioner's participation in the commission of crime has been found to be doubtful by the Investigating Officer. The opinion of the Investigating Officer legally has no value but nevertheless it can be consi--dered for the purpose of bail. In Rehmar Ullah alias Rehman v. The State (1970 SCMR 2992) it was ruled that the opinions of the Investigating Officers certainly do not constitute legal evidence, but being adverse to the prosecution they put one on enquiry as to the veracity of the prosecution case. No exception was thus taken to the order passed by the Sessions Judge allowing bail in view of the opinions of the Investigating Officers.
11. In the light of above circumstances and without prejudice to the merits of the case, the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of A Rs. 30,000 (Rupees Twenty Thousands only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of A. C., Ferozewala. fail allowed.