1. ' Shahamand petitioner has moved this petition for bail in a case registered against him and others under sections 148 and 302/149, P. P. C. ' The allegations are that on 20th June, 1982 at 7 p. m.
2. Muhammad Sharif deceased and his wife Mst. Rashida were present at a bus-stand on Multan Road, Lahore, in order to see off Muhammad Nazir P. W. Who had to board a bus. For his village. The petitioner and his co-accused Niamat armed with 12 bore pistols and Shaulcat. Arshad and Rehmat Ali armed with khan jars who were present at the petrol pump, raised lalkaras, hurled filthy abuses and Niamat fired a shot at Muhammad Nazir hitting his right chin. Shahamand petitioner also fired a shot but it missed. Muhammad Nazir hurriedly got into the bus while Muhammad Shelf deceased and Mst. Rashida ran towards their house. They were chased by all the accused and when they reached near their house, Shahamand fired a shot hitting Muhammad Sharif on the left shoulder, as a result of which he fell to the ground. Then co-accused Niamat fired a shot hitting his left arm and armpit. He was taken to Mayo Hospital, Lahore, where he succumbed to his injuries soon after.
3. ' The motive for the offence was that eleven days prior to the occurrence co-accused Niamat enticed away Mst. Hamida, daughter of Ali Muhammad complainant. He kept her with him for eight days and three days prior to the occurrence left her at Pattoki Adda. Later on she told her relatives that Niamat had forcibly removed her ornaments. The complainant askad Niamat and his relatives for returning the ornaments but they declined, as a result of which the relations between the parties got strained.
4. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the F. I. R. Was lodged 4 hours after the occurrence and this delay has not been explained. It is further submitted that the petitioner was declared innocent by two investigating agencies and he has been falsely implicated due to his relationship with co-accused Niamat.
5. ' The learned counsel for the complainant and the State, on the other hand, contended that the petitioner has been named in the F. I. R. a specific role has been attributed to him and he has been challaned along with the other accused, therefore, no ground for bail is made out.
3. I have gone through the relevant material. The occurrence took place at 7 p. m. And the statement of the complainant, which forms the basis of formal F. I. R. Was recorded in Mayo Hospital at 11-30 p. m. After the occurrence, the deceased was carried to Mayo Hospital. The complainant himself had suffered a fire-arm injury, therefore, he was no expected to rush to the police station soon after the occurrence. In any case, the mere delay is not per se sufficient for the grant of bail. The petitioner was found innocent during the investigation by the A. S. P. The record, however, shows that he arrived at this finding in view of the statements made by six persons. The submission of the learned counsel for the complainant, that all of them belong to the bradari of the petitioner, find support from the record. The finding of the investigating officer is relevant but not binding. The petitioner is named in the F. I. R. And a specific role has been attributted to him. He is alleged to have fired a shot on the deceased hitting his left shoulder and he has been challaned alongwith other accused. In the circumstances, I do not consider it a fit case for the grant of bail.
6. The petition is dismissed.