' Petitioner seeks bail in case F.I.R. No,170 of 1984, registered at Police Station Kharian, district Gujrat, on 9-9-1984, on the statement of Haji Muhammad Ibrahim, for an occurrence which had taken place on the same day at 6.30 p.m.
2. According to the F.I.R., Abdul Razzaq, son of the complainant, had gone out for easing and when he was coming back at about 6.30 p.m. He was attacked by the petitioner accompanied by Muhammad Asghar, his brother, and two others armed with Kulharis. On the noise raised by the deceased, the complainant accompanied by Muhammad Yaqub and Nur Muhammad ran to the spot and saw the petitioner and his co-accused giving blows with Kulharis to Abdur Razzaq, as a result of which, he fell down. The assailants ran to a nearby maize field. The complainant could not identify the other two unknown persons. He, however, stated that his son might be in a position to name them.
' Abdur Razzaq, in an injured condition, was removed to Civil Hospital, Kharian, wherefrom he was shifted to Mayo Hospital, Lahore, on 10-9-1984 in an unconscious condition, where he expired on 15- 9-1984, without making any statement.
' The motive for the occurrence was that two years prior to the occurrence, petitioner and his brother Muhammad Asghar, co-accused, were belabouring Muhammad Fayyaz son of Muhammad Nawaz and were taunting him that if he had any helper ((11 ) he may call him as well. It is stated by the complainant that in the meantime his son reached there. He told them that he was helper of Fayyaz and he stopped the petitioner and his brother Asghar from beating him. Both of them threatened Abdul Razzaq that they will teach him a lesson for taking the side of Muhammad Fayyaz. The matter was, however, compromised on the intervention of the Beradaei, but on the day of occurrence at morning time, petitioner and Muhammad Asghar again threatened Abdur Razzaq saying that they were bitterly annoyed with him and that soon they will deal with him. The deceased told this to his father when the latter came to the house. The complainant was thinking and planning to bring this matter to the notice of the Beradari, but in the meantime this occurrence took place.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the complainant had stated in the F.I.R. That two persons, other than the petitioner and Muhammad Asghar, had also attacked and caused injuries to the deceased but they have not been traced, that nothing was recovered from the petitioner, and that the D.S.P., during investigation had declared the petitioner to be innocent and under his direction his name has been placed in column No,2 of the challan and so a case for further inquiry is made out.
4. Learned counsel for the State/complainant have opposed bail and contended that the D.S.P.
Without substantial reasons and proof had opined about the innocence of the petitioner and had given a direction to place the name of the petitioner in column No,2 of the challan and that during investigation conducted by the local police the petitioner was fouhd guilty.
5. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case diary recorded by the D.S.P./S.D.P.O. According to the relevant case diary 104 persons had attended the D.S.P. When he was investigating the case in support of the complainant while 37 persons had attended the D.S.P. In support of the accused party. According to the case diary only two persons had stated in support of the petitioner. One of them, Rashid Ahmad son of Rehmat Ali, had stated that his wife was ill and Ghazanfar, who is his relative, had come to inquire about her health at 2 p.m. On 9-9-1984 and had stayed with him for the night. The other, Sufi Allah Dad son of Allah Ditta, had stated that Rashid Ahmad was his relati"e. He had gone to see him at evening time where a guest was sitting and Rashid Ahmad had introduced him, to be Ghazanfar and told him that he was related to him. No documentary evidence was produced, nor statement of any other person was recorded in support of the plea of alibi taken by the petitioner.
6, Apparently, for the present, the opinion expressed by the D.S.P. Does not seem to be based on solid grounds. The prosecution, of course, will have to prove its own case at the trial, but for the decision of this bail petition, enough to say, that the eye-witnesses have implicated the petitioner alleging specific role of having caused injuries to the deceased. The contention of the learned counsel that the two persons, who, according to the F.I.R. Had attacked the deceased alongwith petitioner and his brother Asghar, were not traced during investigation, is not of that importance, in view of the fact that the complainant had straightaway stated in the F.I.R. That he could not identify them, nor knew them, and that his son might be in a position to tell their names. As Abdur Razzaq died without regaining conscious to make statement, the reason for non-identification of those two assailants is obvious. The deceased was found to have suffered 10 incised wounds.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the weapon of offence was not recovered from the petitioner, although is correct, but this by itself is not sufficient to grant bail to the petitioner.
7. In the circumstances, I find no merit in this petition. The same is dismissed.