Having been accused of offences punishable under section 302/148/149/109, P.P.C., in pursuance of the F.I.R. No. 66 of 21-5-1990 of the Police Station Vehnike Tarar, Jafar petitioner had approached this Court initially through Criminal Miscellaneous No.3737/B of 1990 for his release on bail after arrest but this petition had been dismissed vide my order dated 10-11-1990 passed in a connected petition bearing Criminal Miscellaneous No.3588/B of 1990.
2. The reasons which then weighed with me for declining to release the petitioner on bail were: that the local S.H.O. And the D.S.P. Of the area who had declared Jafer petitioner as innocent had not given any reasonable grounds for such a finding; that the said Investigating Officers had not examined Sher Afghan A.D.C.(G) Lahore Cantt., and other persons with whom Jafer petitioner claimed to have remained on the day of occurrence and immediately prior thereto; that in the circumstances, the fact that none of the crime empties recovered from the spot were found to have been fired from the Kalashnikov recovered from Jafer petitioner was not of vital significance when he stood specifically named in the F.I:R. As the person responsible for injuring the deceased with a shot fired by him and finally that the investigation had since been entrusted to the Superintendent of Police of the Provincial Crimes Branch who had still not finalized the same.
3. The petitioner now claims that the S.P. Of the Provincial Crimes had finalized his investigation; had found him innocent and that this finding of the S.P./I.O. Had been, approved even by the I.-G.
Police of the Province and that a fresh application, in view of this new development, had been submitted by him before the learned Sessions Court which had, however, been dismissed.
4. Hence this fresh petition before this Court for the petitioner's release on post-arrest bail.
5. Mr. Shahid Hamid, the learned counsel appearing for Ihsanullah complainant argued yesterday that the investigation conducted by the Crimes Branch did not deserve any credit and that the same could not be made the basis for admitting the petitioner to bail. As the S.P. Who had conducted the investigation was not present, 1 adjourned the matter today and directed the personal appearance of the said S.P. Who is now in attendance with record.
6. Mr. Shahid Hamid, Advocate, submits that Sher Afghan, A.D.C.(G), Lahore Cantt., had vouched for the presence of Jafer petitioner in Lahore only till 10-00 a.m. On the day of occurrence and that the same was not incompatible with Jafer petitioner's participation in the occurrence in question at 2- 00 p.m. In village Kohlu Tarar which was only 2/3 hours driving distance from Lahore.
7. The learned counsel adds that no explicit reliance could be placed on the affidavits submitted by three Advocates, namely, Malik Pervaiz Iqbal, Ch. Muhammad Sadiq and Sh. Muhammad Siddique as also on the one submitted by Rashid Aslam, who was a business partner of Jafer petitioner and that the I.O's. Report which was based on such a material was not trustworthy. He reiterates that Jafer petitioner stood specifically named as the principal accused from whose possession a Ylashnikov stood recovered and thus, the petitioner could not be allowed bail.
8. The S.P./1.0. Explains that if the statement of the A.D.C.(G) above-- mentioned was confined only to the fact that Jafer petitioner had been with him in Lahore only upto 10-00 a.m. On the day of occurrence, then perhaps he would not have acted upon this statement. He adds that the statement made by the said A.D.C.(G) was that he was a common relative of both the parties and that Jafer petitioner had visited him at his residence in the evening preceding the day of occurrence i.e. On 20-5-1990 and had told him that the dispute between Ihsanullah and Gul Nawaz had become very serious and that Amanullah, who was a real brother of Ihsanullah complainant, should be approached to intervene in the matter. The A.D.C.(G) had further informed the 1.0. That he alongwith Jafar petitioner went to the residence of Amanullah Tarar in Gulberg who had a guest in his house by the name of Tariq. This Amanullah took Jafer petitioner to another room where the two of them, stayed alone for a little while and thereafter stated that because of a guest which Amanullah had in the house, he could not have a detailed discussion/dialogue about the matter in question and that he would come to Sher Afghan's office at 9-00 a.m. The next morning and would talk about it there. Sher Afghan and Jafer petitioner then went back to their respective houses and the next day i.e. On 21-5-1990 which was the day of occurrence, Jafer petitioner reached the office of Sher Afghan at 9-00 a.m. And the two then waited for Amanullah Tarar for about half an hour and then they rang up the residence of Amanullah Tarar and were informed that the said Amanullah had already left the house. The two of them waited further in the retiring room of the said Sher Afghan till 10-00 a.m. Whereafter, Sher Afghan claimed to have gone to his Court room leaving Jafer petitioner behind in the retiring room and stated that he would not be in a position to state at what time, Jafer petitioner left his retiring room.
9. The S.P. Claims also to have examined Amanullah Tarar who accepted Jafer petitioner and Sher Afghan visiting him in the evening preceding the day of occurrence and admitted to have promised to discuss the matter with them the next morning but that he did not go to them as promised. The S.P. Claims to have. x; then confronted him, with the claim of Jafer petitioner that having waited in vain for Amanullah in the retiring room of Sher Afghan, he had gone away to his office and had then gone to Amanullah's house at about 2-30 p.m. Looking for him and while waiting for Amanullah Jafer petitioner had in fact even had his lunch there with Amanullah's were and this happened to be the day of occurrence. The S.P. States that despite having remained associated with the investigation, in support of his brother Ihsanullah complainant, ever since the occurrence in question, Amanullah informed the S.P./I.O. That he had never checked-up from his were about this claim of Jafer petitioner and it was only a day after, that the said Amanullah told the S.P./I.O. That this claim of Jafer petitioner was false.
10. The S.P./I.O. Further informs me that Jafer petitioner had taken up this plea in the very first interrogation conducted by the then 1.0. He adds that this plea had found a substantial support from the statement made by Amanullah Tarar who was a real brother of Ihsanullah complainant and who had been joining the investigation from the very outset as a supporter of the said Ihsanullah. The S.P. States that if Jafer petitioner had to fabricate a plea of alibi, then he would not create the same vis-a-vis the real brother of the complainant and a real paternal-uncle of one of the deceased and that it was for this reason, that he had been impressed with the plea of Jafer petitioner
11. The S.P. Further claims to have examined Mehdi Hassan Bhatti, the local M.P.A. From Hafizabad who was a supporter of Ihsanullah complainant party. '
12. According to the S.P., this Mehdi Hassan Bhatti M.PA. Had claimed before him that this occurrence was the result of a conspiracy hatched by Jafer petitioner who had arranged and supplied the men for committing. The said occurrence. The S.P. Then claims to have put a direct question to him as to whether Jafer petitioner was personally present in Kohlu Tarar at the time of occurrence and whether he had participated in the same at which, the M.PA. Informed him that he knew that Jafer petitioner was in Kohlu Tarar in the evening of the day of occurrence but he could not say whether Jafer petitioner was or was not present at the time of occurrence.
13. The S.P. Also examined one Afzal Tarar who is the local M.NA. And is a common relative of both the parties. He informed the S.P. That according to his information and knowledge, Jafer petitioner was not present in village Kohlu Tarar or at the place of occurrence at the time of the occurrence in question nor had he participated in the same and further that according to his information, Jafer petitioner had come to village Kohlu Tarar in the evening and had gone away after hearing of the occurrence in question. -
14. The S.P. Claims to have been primarily impressed with the material abovementioned in concluding that Jafer petitioner had not participated in the occurrence in question; that he was in Lahore at the relevant time and was thus innocent.
15. The learned counsel for the complainant has not denied that Amanullah is a real brother of Ihsanullah complainant and that he is a supporter of Ihsanullah. He has; also not denied that Mehdi Hassan Bhatti, M.P.A. Was also a supporter and a partyman of Ihsanullah complainant and further that Afzal Tarar, M.NA. Was a common relative of both the parties who was not siding with one party or the other.
16. Having thus examined the reasons which weighed with the 10 in reaching the conclusions that he has, I find that the said reasons cannot be termed as perverse or unreasonable. I find no reasons not to act upon the findings of this I.O., at least, for the present.
17. Before I part with this order, I must add that 1 am conscious that I have undertaken a rather detailed examination of the material available on record in the disposal of this petition but the same had become necessary on account of the vehement submissions of the learned counsel for the complainant challenging the conclusions reached by the 1.0. Of the present case. Nevertheless whatever has been observed or noticed in this order, is only for the purpose of this bail matter and should not influence the mind of any Court dealing with the trial or other connected matters.
18. In view of the above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Hafizabad. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.