' On 29-9-1987 at 8-30 p.m. Hakimuddin complainant, was informed that his nephew Ishtiaq, aged about 14 years, had been shot to death. He along with Liaqat Ali and Salahuddin rushed to the Chobara of Aurangzeb, petitioner, where they saw the deceased lying injured who told them that he was shot at by Aurangzeb. Aurangzeb allegedly ran downstairs with revolver in his hand.
Hakimuddin, therefore, lodged the report the same night with Police Station Kup. The cause for the attack was stated to be that the parties were opposed to each other politically.
2. During the investigation conducted by S.I. Khan Muhammad, S.I. Khizar Hayat and A.S.P. Shujaat Hussain, they had declared the petitioner innocent as according to them it was a case of suicide.
Again on 20-11-1987 Additional S.P. Also found the petitioner innocent and directed that complainant Hakimuddin be proceeded against under section 182, P.P.C. In these circumstances, Hakimuddin filed a complaint wherein the Additional Sessions Judge summoned the petitioner as accused under section 302, P.P.C. And section 12, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance, 1979, vide order, dated 23-12-1988. The petitioner appeared there and the Court granted him bail on 20-1-1988. Subsequently, the case was re-investigated by Salim Bakhtiar, Addl. S.P. Who has sent the challan against the petitioner. At this stage the petitioner was arrestd on 23-8-1988.
He approached the Sessions Court for grant of bail in challan case which was refused on 25-9- 1988, hence this application. It may be stated that there was a dispute between the mother and the father of the deceased over his custody which matter is still pending before the Guardian Judge.
3. It is contended that the petitioner has been found innocent in four consecutive investigations and that he was allowed bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge who dealt with the private complaint filed against him by Hakimuddin who is complainant in the challan case as well, therefore, the learned Court was not competent to refuse bail to the petitioner in the challan case without cancelling his earlier bail granting order passed in the complaint case. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.
4. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of the fact that the petitioner has been found innocent in four investigations and that the petitioner had been granted concession of bail in the complaint case, I find that the petitioner is entitled to the grant of bail, in challan case as well. This petition is, therefore, allowed. The petitioner shall be released subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,20,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.