1. I have already dealt with the petition on merits of the present petitioners excluding Muhammad Aslam and Mazhar Qayyum vide my order dated the 4th of March 1975, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 27/B of 1975. A case is registered against the petitioners along with others under section 302/307/148/149/324, P. P. C. On the 5th of February 1974, at Police Station Kamoki. According to the allegations in the F. I. R. Muhammad Aslam, Sajjad Hussain and Muhammad Iqbal petitioners were armed with revolvers whereas Mazhar Qayyum petitioner was empty---handed. It is stated that they attacked the complainant party along with their companions. About Muhammad Iqbal petitioner there is only a general allegation that he fired from his revolver but no one was injured thereby. It may be pointed out that Muhammad Iqbal petitioner was himself injured in the course of occurrence probably at the bands of the complainant side. But there is no mention as to how was he injured in the F. I. R. Similarly, Mazhar Qayyum petitioner was injured but there is no mention of the same in the F. I. R. The injuries sustained by Muhammad Iqbal petitioner are described by the Medical Officer, namely, Dr. Manzur Ahmad Qureshi, who had` examined him on the 5th of February, 1974, at 10-00 p.m., as follows:- "A lacerated stab wound with slightly inverted margins 1/4' x 1/6' on the back of right leg near the bee). The exit wound was 4/10' x 1/8' just behind the right outer ankle. The exit wound was at a lower level than inlet wound (3/8' below). Both the wounds communicated. Corresponding to inlet wound there was a hole on the sock measuring 1/2' x 3/8' and corresponding to exit wound hole 1/4' x 1/4'.
2. The injuries were simple in nature and were caused with blunt pointed weapon."
3. I cannot understand what the medical officer means by 'blunt pointed weapon'. Anyway, Muhammad Iqbal petitioner even according to the eye--witnesses whose statements had been recorded by the committing Magistrate is stated to have fired through his revolver but no one was hurt by his fire. On the contrary he himself was injured probably at the hands of the complainant party. As for the part played by Sajjad Hussain petitioner, it is stated that he fired a shot through his revolver which hit Zahid, a child, on the leg. I have already previously rejected the bail petition of Zahid Hussain petitioner and I do not see any case has been made in his favour in the present petition. His petition is, therefore, rejected. Accord--ing to the eye-witnesses whose statements have been recorded by the committing Magistrate, Muhammad Aslam petitioner is stated to have fired a shot through his revolver at Muhammad Ikram deceased whereas Mazhar Qayyum petitioner is stated to have thrown a brick bat at Muhammad Ikram deceased. Both these injuries are stated to have been caused on the head of Muhammad Ikram deceased. Learned counsel has been arguing this petition before me for a number of days in order to show that the medical officers in this case had been approached or bribed, in particular, Dr. Ghulam Muhammad, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. The deceased in this case, namely, Muhammad Wain was first examined by Dr. Manzur Ahmad Qureshi D. H. O., Gujranwala while he was still alive at 8-00 p.m. On the 5th of February, 1974. He noticed a swelling 3' x 3' on the right side of the scalp and right temple. On the swelling there was a wound 1/8" x 1/10'. He stated that nothing could be said about the wound whether it was a firearm injury or a simple, contused wound. X-ray of the skull was advised to find out if there was any pellet inside the skull.
4. He opined that the injury was caused by a blunt weapon and there was a doubt about the small wound whether it was the result of the firearm or otherwise. He had examined the deceased as a private case: Thereafter, it appears that the deceased while he was still alive was brought to Lahore and he was medically examined at 11-00 p.m. On the same day by Dr. Muhammad Aslam Qureshi, Medical Officer, Mayo Hospital, Lahore, again as a private case. He commented on this injury that first he thought that the wound was caused by some fire-arm. But then felt that the injury could equally be sustained by some blunt weapon. So he advised skull X-ray. Hs could not get the X-ray of the patient and, therefore, could not confirm or controvert his findings. The deceased died and on the 6th of February 1974, the post-mortem on his dead body was conducted by Dr. Ghulam Muhammad. Learned counsel for the petitioners has showed me record which indicates that this medical officer has a questionable reputation and that he is being departmentally proceeded against in numerous cases of corruption in connection with post-mortem reports. Anyway, this medical officer has described two injuries on the head of the deceased one stated by him to have been caused by' firearm and the other by a blunt weapon. After his post-mortem report the accused side moved for appointment of a medical board to determine the nature of the head injury of the deceased. The Board have arrived at the conclusion that there was no proof available from the record indicating that any injury caused on the head of the deceased was the result of a firearm. Learned counsel has pointed out that Dr. Manzur Ahmad Qureshi who first examined the deceased while he was still alive at Gujranwala, had agreed with the report of the medical Board in his cross-examination. The argument of learned counsel is that in the light of the medical evidence in this case and the statements of the medical officers now it can be categorically stated that there was no evidence on record from which such an inference could be drawn that the head injury caused to Muhammad Ikram deceased was the result of a firearm. Learned counsel submits that if it is not a firearm injury and was a blunt weapon injury, then Muhammad Aslam petitioner who is attributed to have fired a shot through his revolver at him could not be held liable. I have heard learned counsel for a number of days in connection with this case and have perused the entire record which was placed before me. It would not be proper for me at this stage to express any opinion respecting the medical evidence which consists of the statements of three doctors and the report of the medical Board. According to the account of the eye-witnesses Muhammad Aslam petitioner and Mazhar Qayyum petitioners, have been attributed injuries only to the deceased. Mazhar Qayyum petitioner is said to have thrown a brickbat at him. I have already mentioned that he is himself injured and his injuries are suppressed in the F. I. R. Even at the commitment stage the eye-witnesses do not say as to how these injuries were caused to him.
5. About Muhammad Aslam petitioner it is stated in the F. I. R. That he is Sub-Inspector of Police and came to the spot in uniform and used his licensed revolver. Learned counsel submits that it is highly improbable that if he was to arrive with the intention to commit the murder, he would come in his uniform. It is then submitted that according to the medical evidence the injury caused on the head of the deceased and which led to his death was a blunt weapon injury which could have been caused by a brick bat and not by firearm. The reasoning 'is that in such circumstances a case for bail was made out in favour of Muhammad Aslam petitioner. I have carefully examined the arguments of learned counsel on this point. But my considered opinion is that all the arguments raised by learned counsel may constitute a case for defence at the trial stage, yet for the purposes of bail, it is not possible for me to scan, scrutinize and assess the quality of medical evidence: In that view of the matter I am afraid, in my opinion no case for bail is made out in favour of Muhammad Aslam and Mazhar Qayyum petitioners who are stated to have caused injuries which led to the death of the deceased. Their petition is, therefore, dismissed. I have rejected the petition of Sajjad Hussain petitioner on the ground that he is stated to have fired a shot through his revolver which caused a fire-arm injury on the leg of the child, Zahid. However, the case of Muhammad Iqbal petitioner is different. He has sustained an injury himself which has not been described in the F. I. R. There is a general allegation against him that he had also fired through his revolver but I have gone through the statements of the eye-witnesses recorded by the committing Magistrate.
6. They stated that no one was hit by his fire and that his firing was ineffective. One would naturally raise the question that if Muhammad Iqbal petitioner was armed with a revolver and was using the same then how would he receive the injuries on his right leg. I do not wish to comment on, the evidence respecting the part played by him in the commission of crime at this stage. Anyway, I feel that a case for bail is made out for Muhammad Iqbal petitioner. Muhammad Iqbal petitioner is accordingly allowed bail subject to his furnishing security in the sum of Rs. 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Gujranwals.
2. Learned counsel submits that the commitment proceedings have been pending since more than a year and have not yet been completed. It is submitted that the accused side is not responsible in any way for the delay in the completion of the commitment proceedings. It is prayed that the Magistrate concerned be directed to expedite the inquiry proceedings. The Magistrate concerned is accordingly directed to complete the inquiry proceedings as early as possible.
7. This petition stands disposed of accordingly.
8. Older accordingly