' This is third application for grant of bail to Raja Amjad Sultan petitioner in a case under section 302/307/427/109, P.P.C. Registered at P.S. South Cantt., Lahore, vide F.I.R. No, 40/87, dated 13-2-1987.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner caused the death of Major Allah Bakhsh Tiwana, in the area of Officers Colony, Lahore Cantt. On 13-2-1987 by firing with an automatic weapon and also caused injury to Karamat Hussain P.W. The earlier applications for grant of bail to him were rejected by me on 4-7-1987 and 10-10-1987. The petitioner filed petition for Special Leave to Appeal against my order, dated 10-10-1987. Since the challan had been submitted by that time, therefore, the Supreme Court directed the petitioner to approach the trial Court once again. The petitioner filed application for bail before the trial Court accordingly. The application was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore on 30-8-1988, hence this petition.
3. Kh. Sultan Ahmad, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that after the rejection of the second application for grant of bail to the petitioner vide order, dated 10-10-1987, it became evident on 19-1-1988 from the order of the learned District Magistrate, Lahore that Muhammad Azeem was never granted pardon to be approver/accomplice, so it is very much clear that the statement of Muhammad Azeem recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. Which was considered by this Court at the time of the rejection of the earlier application was obtained on false pretext that Muhammad Azeem had been granted pardon by the District Magistrate, Lahore; that the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the F.I.R.; that Karamat Hussain did not name the petitioner as assailant in his statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C.; that Muhammad Nawaz another eye- witness has also not mentioned the name of the petitioner in his statement before the police; that no parade was held for the identification of the accused/petitioner by the eye-witnesses; that although the presence of Meerbaz has not been shown in the corresponding Zimni, yet his statement has been recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. On 13-2-1987 which shows that his statement was subsequently recorded; that had Meerbaz identified the petitioner at the time of occurrence, the name of the latter must have appeared in the F.I.R; that the number and nature of the injuries found on the person of the deceased shows that the number of the assailants was at least two and different weapons were used in the occurrence; that no incriminating recovery has been effected from the petitioner and that the so-called dying declaration made by Mst. Nighat before S.P. On 5-4-1987 is not admissible in the trial of the petitioner for the murder of Major Allah Bakhsh Tiwana. Learned counsel for the State has opposed this application on the ground that Mst.
Nighat, daughter of the deceased, had made statement immediately before her death before the S.P. To the effect that since she wanted to marry Raja Muhammad Amjad accused/petitioner and his deceased father was not agreeing, so he was done to death pursuant to the conspiracy hatched by her and the petitioner.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. This is third application for grant of bail to the petitioner. I have already rejected his two bail applications vide detailed orders, dated 4-7-1987 and 10-10-1987. In my order dated 4-7-1987, I have observed: "Sufficient evidence can be offered against the petitioner which if unrebutted may lead to the inference of his guilt."
In my order, dated 10-10-1987, I was of the view that there were no reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner had not committed the alleged offence. Looking on the material collected by the Investigating Officer more particularly, the statement of Mirbaz recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C.
Wherein he claimed to have identified the petitioner on the spot at the time of occurrence, I do not see any valid reason to change my view point. Excluding the statement of Muhammad Azeem recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. As an approver and the dying declaration made by Mst. Nighat before the police, there still remains evidence of motive, ocular account and Wajtakkar supported by Karamat Hussain, an injured witness, Mirbaz and Muhammad Yar and as such, it can safely be said that there are reasonable grounds within the meanings of section 497, Cr.P.C. For believing that the petitioner has committed the alleged crime. The submissions made by the learned counsel also require deeper appreciation of evidence which is neither permissible nor desirable at this stage. Furthermore, after the rejection of the previous petitions for bail, no fresh ground has arisen in due course of events which may entitle the petitioner to the concession of bail in an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
' For what has been said above, the petition is dismissed.