This is an application for grant of bail to Khalid Javed Virk, petitioner, in a case under section 365/506/427/380/148/149/452/109, P.P.C. And section 324, Qisas and Diyat Ordinance and section 14/17 of :Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, registered at Police Station Allama Iqbal Town, Lahore, vide F.I.R. No.205, dated 8-5-1991.
2. According to the F.I.R. About 750 persons variously armed forcibly took possession of the property of complainant abducted Sajid, Mst. Rubina and Mst. Suraya, took away the dowery of Mst. Rubina, criminally intimidated the complainant party and indulged in indiscriminate firing. According to the statements of the eye-witnesses recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. The petitioner was very much present on the spot at the time of occurrence and had actively participated in the commission of the crime. Zaheer Ahmad A.S.I. After inspecting the police file stated that according to the investigation conducted by Mr. Shafaqat D.S.P., Police Station Ichhra, the petitioner was not present on the spot at the time of occurrence although he was responsible for the crime committed at the eventful time.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the offences other than section 17 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The allegations that the petitioner was present on the spot and had participated in the occurrence were found false during investigation; that there is no cogent evidence to the effect that the crime was committed at the instance and with the connivance of the petitioner and that the co-accused Muhammad Rafiq, Assistant Commissioner against whom the allegations are identical has already been released on bail by this Court.
Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has opposed this application on the ground that serious crime was committed by the co-accused at the instance/instigation/connivance of the petitioner.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the F.I.R.; that the eye-witnesses of the occurrence stated that the petitioner had come to the spot alongwith the co-accused and had physically participated in the occurrence but the Investigating Officer/D.S.P. Has come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not present on the spot at the time of occurrence although the offence was committed at his instigation and with his connivance; that the abducted persons were released after the occurrence at some distance from the place of occurrence; that the stolen property has not been recovered from the petitioner; that having been sent to jail he is not required to the police for investigation. Be that as it may, the fact remains that there are conflicting prosecution versions. According to the version supported by the eye-witnesses, the petitioner was present on the spot at the time of occurrence and had physically committed the crime. According to the investigation, he was not present on the spot at the time of occurrence although he was responsible for the commission of the crime, which was committed at his instance and with his connivance. So, it is yet to be determined as to which of the two versions was/is correct.
Without making any expression of opinion, lest it may prejudice the investigation or the trial, I feel that a case for grant of bail to the petitioner has been made out. So, he will be released on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Saddar, Lahore.