' Tariq Majid petitioner has moved this petition for bail in a case registered against him and three others under sections 302 and 307/34, P.P.C.
' The prosecution version is that on 13th October, 1982, at 12-45 p.m. Co-accused Abdul Majid armed with revolver, his sons Shahid Majid, Tariq Majid petitioner armed with Churris and co- accused Imdad Ali with Khanjar surrounded Arshad Mahmud deceased in Chowk Mehr Suba Park.
Co-accused Abdul Majid raised a Lalkara that Arshad Mahmud should be finished, upon which Shahid gave him a Churri blow hitting his back and co-accused lmdad Ali gave a Khanjar blow hitting his chest. Arshad Mahmud ran towards the complainant who was then proceeded towards his factory alongwith Muhammad Latif P.W. Tariq Majid petitioner then gave him a Churri blow hitting his left thigh. Thereafter, co-accused Abdul Majid fired two shots at the complainant party but nobody was injured. Arshad Mahmud deceased was taken to Mayo Hospital in a Rickshaw but he expired on the way.
' The motive for the offence was that in the month of August 1982, i,e, two months prior to the occurrence a case under sections 148 and 307/149, P.P.C. Was registered against Arshad Mahmud and others for causing injuries to Shahid Majid etc. In respect of the same occurrence a cross-case under sections 147, 148 and 325, P.P.0 was registered against Shahid Majid etc.
2. The petitioner and his father co-accused Abdul Majid Butt made an appliction for bail in the Sessions Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed bail to Abdul Majid co-accused on the ground that he was found innocent by three Investigating Officers and no injury to the deceased had been attributed to him. This concession was, however, declined to Tariq Majid and his application was dismissed on the ground that he was attributed role of causing injury to the deceased when he was trying to escape from the scene of occurrence.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the case was investigated by the S.H.O., D.S.P. And A.S.P. And all the three police officers found the petitioner and his father Abdul Majid to be innocent and their names have been shown in column No,2 of the challan. He further submits that the injury attributed to the petitioner was simple and on a non-vital part of the body of the deceased and no weapon of offence has been recovered from him, therefore, he is entitled to the concession of bail. He has relied on Saeed Ahmad v. The State, 1981 SCM R 565; Ghulam Rasul v. The State and 4 others, 1982 SCM R 440 and Abdul Rehman v. The State, 1978 P Cr. L J 589. The learned counsel for the complainant concedes that the petitioner was declared innocent by three Investigating Officers but he contends that the F.I .R. Version is supported by three eye-witnesses and the petitioner was previously involved in a number of criminal cases, therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of bail.
4. I have gone through the relevant material. The petitioner was found innocent by three Investigating Officers including a D.S.P. And an A.S.P. And his name has been shown in Column No,2 of the challan. In Ghulam Rasul v. The State and 4 others, 1982 SCM R 440; one of the accused was allowed bail by this Court on the ground that his name had been shown in Column No,2 by the Investigating Officer. A petition for Special Leave to Appeal against that Order was dismissed by the Supreme Court with an observation that "sufficient weight has to be attached to the result of the investigation particularly when an accused is placed in Column No,2 on account of it". In Saeed Ahmad's case 1981 SCM R 565, the learned Additional Sessions Judge released the accused on bail on the ground that he was found innocent by two responsible police officers and was shown in Column No,2 of the challan. The bail was cancelled by a learned Single Judge of this Court, in exercise of suo motu powers, on the ground that three witnesses in their statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had implicated him. The order was set aside by the Supreme Court with an observation that the order of the Additional Sessions Judge releasing the petitioner on bail had the support of precedents from good authority. Rehmat Ullah v. The State, 1970 SC MR 299 and Karam Din v. Muhammad Ashraf and 2 others 1970 SCM R 230 were referred.
' The learned counsel for the complainant pointed out that the petitioner was previously involved in a number of cases. He filed an affidavit of the complainant containing a list of eleven cases including the present one. The learned counsel for the petitioner filed a counter-affidavit to the effect that the cases were false and petitioner was acquitted as the prosecution failed to prove the charges against him. The learned counsel submits that the case under section 307/34, P.P.C. At Serial No,4 was never registered and so far the petitioner has not been convicted in any case. He submits that the petitioner is to be deemed to be innocent, till he has been convicted by a competent Court. Taking into consideration all the facts and the circumstances of the case, I feel inclined to the view that a case for the enlargement of the petitioner is made out. Consequently, I admit him to bail in the sum of Rs,25,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Lahore Cantt.