The petitioner seeks bail in case F.I.R. No. 84/74, registered on 21-4-1985, at Police Station Chung, on the statement of Syed Ali Hasan Shah, under section 307/324/148/149, P.P.C.
2. According to the complainant, the petitioner armed with a gun, accompanied by six others, who were armed with guns, rifle and Chhuri while raising Lalkaras that they will avenge the insult hurled by Ibrar Miras and will teach a lesson to the persons who were giving him protection, opened the attack on the complainant party. In the occurrence, Ibrar suffered fire-arm injuries while Naeem suffered injuries by a sharp-edged weapon.
The allegation against the petitioner is of having raised a Lalkara and having resorted to ineffective firing alongwith others after Ibrar and Naeem had suffered injuries.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no allegation against the petitioner of having caused any injury to any person, that no gun has been recovered from him, that he has been involved on account of enmity, that two police Inspectors during independent investigations, have expressed clear opinions that although the petitioner was present at the spot but he was empty handed and that nothing has been said by these two Inspectors that the petitioner had participated in the occurrence. Lastly learned counsel submitted that although the doctor who has issued M.L.R. After examining Ibrar Hussain, has opined that the injuries on the person of Ibrar were pellet injuries, fired from far away but the description of injuries as abrasions speaks a lot to consider that the injuries could not have been the result of fire shots. In this connection learned counsel particularly pointed out that the abrasions have been noted as "pointed abrasions."
4. Learned counsel for the State contended that he does not subscribe to the opinions expressed by the two Inspectors about the petitioner having not participated in the occurrence while being armed with a gun. It is also submitted that the challan has already been submitted to Court. He opposed the bail petition.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant also supported learned counsel for the State by submitting that opinion of the police officers is not binding, ------------ and since all the eye-witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R. Have supported the allegation levelled in the F.I.R. Much weight should not be given to the opinions of the police officers.
6. At the very outset I would like to say that Yam abstaining from embarking, upon, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, about the opinion expressed by the doctor, who had examined Ibrar. However, having gone through the F.I.R. And having considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also taking into account the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the State /complainant, I am of the considered opinion that in view of the fact that the petitioner was not found to have caused any injury to anybody and that the two Inspectors of different police stations have come to a finding that the petitioner had not actually participated in the occurrence, either by being present at the spot, armed with a gun or by doing any overt act, I think the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. He shall be released on bail on his furnishing a bail bond in the sum bf Rs.20,000 with two sureties in the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner (Sadar)/Trial Magistrate, Lahore.