' A case under section 302/34, P.P.C. Has been registered against Inam Ullah and Sami Ullah Tariq both sons of Aman Ullah on the statement of Liaqat Ali son of Rehmat Ali with Police Station Chak Jhumra on 31-5-1989 vide F.I.R. No, 223 of 1989 at 8-35 p.m.
2. The allegations are that on 31-5-1989 at 5-30 p.m., the complainant and his nephew Qamar Shahzad son of Ameer Ali, took their cattle to Rajbah Thari Kambar to water them. Thereafter both were coming back with their cattle and Qamar Shahzad was ahead of the complainant about half a Killa when the accused Tariq Ahmad and Inam Ullah both armed with .7 mm rifle and revolver, respectively, emerged at the spot. Immediately thereafter,the petitioner shouted a Lalkara that they would teach a lesson to Qamar Shahzad for having insulted Tariq Ahmad co-accused. The accused overpowered Qamar Shahzad and brought him in their land by dragging. In the meantime, Liaqat Ali, Zia-ud-Din, Javed Ahmad P.Ws. Reached the spot and witnessed the occurrence. Tariq Ahmad is alleged to have fired from his .7 mm rifle which hit Qamar Shahzad below his left shoulder. On receipt of the injury, he fell down on the ground. Second fire was made by the petitioner Inam Ullah which luckily missed the victim and instead hit Tariq Ahmad co- accused. After committing the offence, the accused ran away towards their Dera. The injured was taken to Civil Hospital Chak Jhumra where he succumbed to his injuries before he could be given any medical aid ' The motive for commission of the crime is that about two months earlier, Tariq Ahmad, co- accused, was subjected to beating and disgrace by the deceased Qamar Shahzad. This quarrel between the parties was however patched up but the accused party gave a warning to the complainant party that they would it Ely take revenge of the insult and beating to Tariq Ahmad.
3. The bail petition of the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad on 9-9-1989. The petitioner seeks his after arrest bail by moving this petition under section 497/498, Cr.P.C.
4. The learned counsel contends that this is a fit case for further inquiry inasmuch as three conflicting versions have been given by the three different Investigating Officers on different occasions, In support of his pleas the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following case-law, Rehmat Ullah alias Rehman v. The State 1970 SCMR 299; Khushi Muhammad etc. v The State 1978 S CM R 360; Ameer Ali and others v. The State 1984 S CM R 521; Muhammad Rafiq v. Abdul Rahman and 5 others 1986 SCMR 1978; Ijaz Hussain Shah v. The State 1989 P Cr. L J 940; Qadir Bakhsh v. Syed Shaukat Ali Shah 1989 P Cr. L J 1002; Qasim Ali v. The State 1989 P Cr. L J 1222; Zulfiqar and others v. The State 1989 P Cr. L J 1780; Muhammad Aslam v. The State 1986 P Cr. L J 1025; Muhammad Sher v. The State 1971 P Cr. L J 590; Haji Rehmat Khan v. The State 1968 P Cr. L J 1905 and Abdul Qadir v. The State 1980 P Cr. L J 397.
' Learned counsel for the complainant and the State have opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner vehemently. They submit that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. And a specific role has been ascribed to him in the commission of the offence. Amongst others, Mr. Muhammad Rafique Bajwa, learned counsel for the complainant submits that the prosecution and the complainant are unanimous regarding involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the crime. Lastly, it is maintained by the learned counsel that the version of the complainant stands established by reliable evidence whereas the versions of the accused and the prosecution are belied by the medical evidence itself available on record. He states that as a consequence thereof the version of the complainant will hold the field for the refusal of bail to the petitioner. He has also relied upon the following case-law in support of his contentions; Asmat Ullah Khan v. The State PLD 1988 SC 621, Muhammad Rashid v. The State 1979 SCMR 92, Haji Inayat-ul-Haq v. Said Muhammad Khan etc. 1988 SCM R 1743.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have read the record very carefully. First version as given by Liaqat Ali in the F.I.R. Was that the co-accused Tariq Ahmad was incidentally hit and injured by the fire of the petitioner. The Investigating Officer reached the conclusion that the petitioner was not present at the spot and came there after the occurrence had already taken place. It was further found out by the Investigating Officer that the deceased himself launched an attack and fired and injured Sami Ullah Tariq. It has also been brought to my notice that on a separate statement of Sarni Ullah Tariq, Criminal proceedings have been initiated against the complainant party as well. According to the last investigation conducted by Muhammad Amlish A.S.P. The petitioner was working in his nearby field with a Kassi in his hand and on hearing the noise, he came at the spot immediately and inflicted a Kassi blow from its wrong side which landed on the back of the deceased. The Investigating Officer also came to the conclusion that revolver belonged to the deceased Qamar Shahzad. It is admitted on both sides that this is a case of three versions. The question as to which version is correct is a question which shall be determined by the trial Court on the basis of evidence. For the time being, on the A face of record, three conflicting versions are available on the record. In my view this is a fit case for further inquiry. Keeping in view the unique features of this case, the provisions of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Are surely attracted. The learned counsel for the complainant candidly argues that the third version of Muhammad Amlish A.S.P. Is contradicted, by the medical evidence available on record. This argument of the learned counsel does lend support to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this is a case which requires further probe. According to the investigation of the last investigator, the petitioner at the time of occurrence was not present at the spot in the beginning when the occurrence commenced. The investigation shows that the petitioner was working in the field with his Kassi. Prima fade, therefore, this becomes doubtful whether he shared the common intention of the co-accused in the commission of the crime or not. An affidavit of co-accused Sami Ullah Tariq has been placed on record to show that the petitioner was not present at the spot and that he was injured on account of a fire-shot of the deceased Qamar Shahzad. All the above facts and circumstances do persuade me to hold that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. Let it be made clear that each criminal case has to proceed on its own peculiar facts and circumstances and has to be decided accordingly. The authorities cited and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner generally lend support to his contentions. The authorities are, therefore, respectfully followed. Accordingly, the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C./Duty Magistrate, Faisalabad.
' This bail granting order shall not influence the opinion of the learned trial Judge and the course of trial in any manner whatsoever.