' This is an application for grant of bail in Amjad Sultan petitioner in a case under section 302/307/420/109, P.P.C. Registered at P.S.South Cantt. Lahore, vide FIR No,40/87.
2. The allegations against the petitioner are that he caused the death of Maj.Allah Bakhsh Tiwana on 13-2-1987 at 8.15 P.M. In the area of Cavalry Ground, Lahore Cantt.
' Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner committed the alleged offence in that, the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the FIR. Arshad Farooq, the first informant has stated in the FIR that the assailant was an unknown person and he could identify him, whereas the petitioner used to visit his house and was already known to him. Had the petitioner been present in the car wherefrom the shots were fired at the deceased, Arshad Farooq complainant, son of the deceased would have certainly named him in the FIR, that the post-mortem examination report reveals that two types of weapons were used in the occurrence whereas the prosecution case is that the 'petitioner above had fired at deceased. Karamat injured witness had not 'named the petitioner as assailant in his statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. On 9-4-1987, that no identification parade has been held for identification of the petitioner, that since no pardon was ever tendered to Muhammad Azeem, therefore, he was not an approver when his statements under section 164, Cr.P.C. Were recorded; that the two statements of Muhammad Azeem recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. On 14- 3-1987 and 9-4-1987 are contradictory; that in statement dated 14-3-1987 Muhammad Azeem stated that he had not seen the actual firing at the deceased as he had gone inside the house to bring a glass of water whereas in his statement dated 9-4-1987, he claimed to be an eye-witness of the murder of the deceased, that -in statement dated 14-3-1987 Muhammad Azeem stated that his sister had informed him about the illicit relations between the petitioner and Mst.Nighat whereas in his statement dated 9-4-1987, he stated that he personally knew about their illicit relations; and that the evidence collected by the Investigating Agency fails to connect the petitioner with the murder of the deceased. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this application on the ground that there is sufficient evidence on police file to connect the petitioner with the murder of the deceased. The Investigating Officer states that the challan has not been submitted so far and that arrangements are being made for holding parade for identification for the petitioner by the eye-witnesses.
4. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that the prosecution proposes to examine Muhammad Azeem as approver in this case; that his name has been included in the list of witnesses and that he is not being sent up to face trial and as such he cannot be regarded as accused in any manner; that the prosecution also wants to produce Muhammad Yar as a 'Waj Takkar' witness who allegedly has seen the petitioner in the car wherefrom the shots were fired at the deceased; that prosecution also wants to examine Karamat injured person as eye-witness of the occurrence; that according to the Investigating Officer arrangements are being made for holding parade for the identification of the petitioner by the eye-witnesses; that the case is still at investigation stage and that, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that sufficient tangible evidence can be offered against the petitioner which if unrebutted may lead to the inference of his guilt. The submissions made by the learned counsel including objections to the status of Muhammad Azeem as to whether he was an approver or an accused, at the time of making statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. Travel beyond the scope of tentative assessm ent and require deeper appreciation which is neither permissible nor desirable in bail matters. It is by now well recognized that while considering bail application, the Court has not to examine the merits of the prosecution case, assess the credibility of the evidence or to make appraisal of the material on record, instead it has to look on the material collected by the Investigating Agency in order to come to the conclusion as to whetherthere are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner has committed the alleged offences.
' For what has been said above, there being no merit, the petition is dismissed. .