IHSAN-UL-HAQ CHAUHDRY, J.- A case under section 302 P.P.C, was registered on 8.4.1987 with Police Station, Sambrial, District Sialkot against unknown assailants. It was alleged that Muhammad Ishaque, a student of 1st Year received bullet injuries while he was studying in his fields and before he could be taken to the hospital he died. The matter was investigated by various investigation agencies and ultimately it came to C.1 A. Staff. It was on 14.6.1990 that the petitioner and Khalid Mahmood were named as accused by the prosecution witnesses. The petitioner earlier moved an application for grant of bail but the same was rejected. Thereafter he moved for grant of bail after arrest. The same, also, was rejected vide order dated 21.6.1990. The petitioner has now moved this Court for grant of bail. Notice was issued to the State.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition has argued that the story of the prosecution does not inspire any confidence because petitioner was named as accused after more than 3 years of occurrence. It is submitted that the explanation, was given that PWs were afraid of the accused, is false on the face of it. The next submission is that neither there is any recovery from the petitioner nor he has been attributed any injury to the deceased. The arguments are summed up with the submission that allegations against the petitioner makes out a case of further inquiry, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to bail.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State as well as complainant submit that the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner cannot be considered as deeper appreciation of the prosecution case is not possible at bail stage. It is added that it is not a case of false implication, otherwise the petitioner could have been named in the F.I.R, itself. It is submitted that there was no motive for the prosecution witnesses to falsely implicate the petitioner. It is submitted that since the petitioner and his co-accused are very influential persons, therefore, although the prosecution witnesses were aware of their crime yet did not come forward to name them. The arguments are summed up with the submission that the petitioner cannot avoid vicarious liability.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. There is no need to touch the merit of the arguments raised in support of the petition in view of the order proposed. The bail application of the petitioner was mainly rejected by the learned Addl Sessions Judge because by that time the investigation was not complete. The investigation now has been finalized and all the relevant facts have come on record, therefore, it is in the interest of justice that the application should be repeated before the Sessions Court, which shall decide the same afresh on merits.
5. It is a matter of great regret that this petition has to be adjourned twice at least as the police officers, who were appearing were not conversant with the facts of the case. So much so they were not sure as to the number and names of the co-accused of the petitioner. It was only today that a categorical statement was made that Khalid Mahmood, a Foot Constable serving in the Punjab Constabulary is the other accused. S.P, Sialkot wrote to Commandment Punjab Constabulary, Farooqabad for the arrest of this accused for the first time on 11.11.1990. The process came unserved with the remarks of the Commandment that the said Khalid Mahmood is on duty alongwilh his Battalion at Rawalpindi. The police thereafter instead of effecting his arrest declared him proclaimed offender. It is quite clear from the conduct of the local police that it has no intention to arrest accused Khalid Mahmood. The first effort was made after this Court has taken notice of this fact. There is no justification to declare him proclaimed offender as he is available and serving in the police department. All these facts go a long way to show that the concerned authorities are illegally protecting Khalid Mahmood, co-accused of the petitioner.' Let copy of this order be sent to Inspector-General of Police, Punjab for taking remedial measures and also to get disciplinary action initiated against the police officers, who are responsible for giving illegal protection to an accused under section 302 P.P.C.
6. The result is that this petition is dismissed.