Rashid Aziz Khan, J.-Sargodha, vide FIR dated 9.1.1988. The petitioner seeks bail in the above noted case. The allegations, as contained in the FIR, are that the first informant Muhammad Ismail was to appear before the DSP,Saddar Circle,Sargodha,therefore,on 9.1.1988 the first informant along with one Zulfiqar went to the house of Hassan. From there the first informant and Zulfiqar sat on one motor-cycle and Hassan with one Maula Bakhsh sat on the other motor-cycle when at about 9:30 a.m. a toyota car overtook them and stopped in front of the motor-cycle of Hassan.Within their view Ahmad Sher and Zafar Iqbal armed with Kalashnikov and rifle respectively, one Agha armed with Kalashnikov, Zafar Iqbal son of Ghulam Muhammad armed with rifle and Ghulam Abbas,the petitioner armed with rifle, came out of the car Ahmad Sher and Agha accused fired hitting Hassan and Maula Bakhsh, whereupon they fell down. Thereafter, Zafar Iqbal and Ghulam Abbas also fired hitting both the injured. As a resuIt of the said injuries, both of them died at the spot.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely involved in the present case.Contends that the case was investigated initially by the Inspector and thereafter the investigation was taken over by the DSP and both of them had recorded in the case diaries regarding the innocence of the petitioner.Submits that since the involvement of the petitioner has not been accepted by the investigating agency, therefore, his case becomes of further inquiry which entitles him to the concession of bail. The contentions have been opposed by learmed counsel for the complainant.
3. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. I have examined the case diaries as well. In the case diaries,the investigating officer after thorough investigation did come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not even present at the spot. The said investigation was verified by the DSP who also gave the same opinion. According to the case diaries, the opinion with regard to the innocence of the petitioner was given after a thorough investigation. Since the presence of the petitioner at the spot has not been accepted by the investigating agency, there-fore,I feel his case becomes of further inquiry. Therefore,the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing security in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with two sureties,each in the like amount,to the satisfaction of Assistamt Commissioner/Duty Matgistrate concerned.