1. The petitioner has applied for post-arrest bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No.199/91, dated 13-6- 1991 under section 324/337-F(v)(vi), P.P.C. As amended by Qisas and Diyat Ordinance read with section 148/149, P.P.C. At Police Station Thikriwala, District Faisalabad.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner alongwith his co---accused caused injuries to Muhammad Idrees who suffered as many as 19 injuries three of them were declared grievous. The injury attributed to the petitioner was on the head caused by him from the butt of his .12 bore gun.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought bail on the ground that the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. And the alleged injury attributed to him had been declared simple by the doctor.
4. I have considered the contention and have perused the record. In this case the F.I.R. Was recorded at the instance of one Muhammad Sharif. Maternal-uncle of the injured on the 13th of June, 1990 at 9-15 a.m. For an occurrence stated to have taken place at 11-00 p.m. On the previous night. The complainant implicated Badar Din, Taj Muhammad, Riaz. Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Ashraf in the commission of offence. However, the injured or regaining consciousness made a statement on the 16 of June, 1991 implicating the petitioner alongwith aforesaid Messrs Muhammad Akram and Riaz. In the course of the investigation forementioned three persons namely Badar Din, Muhammad Ashraf and Taj Muhammad were declared innocent and challan had been submitted against Riaz Ahmad, Muhammad Akram and the present petitioner. In this background, since the injured himself after regaining consciousness implicated the petitioner in his statement, the argument of the learned counsel that the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R.
5. Would not be of any help. The other argument of the learned counsel that the injury attributed to the petitioner has been declared simple is also not of much assistance in the facts of this case.th The, head injury attributed to the petitioner was declared simple by the doctor only on the ground that the X-ray, as advised, had not been produced, as such in the absence of the X-ray, the same was declared simple. The learned State counsel has pointed out from the record that Muhammad Ismail injured was admitted in the hospital on the 13of June, 1991 and was discharged on 7-7-1991.
6. The Investigating Officer Sadiq Ali on the 30th of June, 1991 moved an application before the Medical officer seeking result of head injury which was kept under observation. He specifically mentioned in this application that the injured was still lying as an indoor patient in the hospital in Siddique Wand. However, the doctor without taking into consideration all these aspects, declared the injury simple.
7. It is an established principle of law and has not been denied by the learned Advocate-General, who has also entered appearance in response to Court's direction that after the registration of the case it becomes the responsibility/duty of the State functionaries to see and ensure that the investigation is taken to its logical conclusion. Here in this case the Investigating Officer has defaulted in the performance of his duty and has secured the opinion of the doctor without furnishing the X-ray report in accordance with the direction. The Medical Officer had also not bothered to see whether his earlier direction qua the X-ray examination of the injured was carried out or not in spite of the fact that the injured was still lying in the hospital under his very nose. The Investigating Officer in this case should have carried out the direction of the doctor in getting the injured X-rayed and then he should have submitted application to the Medical Officer for his opinion qua the nature of the injury. I have also been told that the injured was never X-rayed as directed. All this shows that the head injury attributed to the petitioner was declared simple only on technical ground without taking the X-ray report as earlier directed. The petitioner has also been found fully implicated in the commission of the offence by the Investigating Agency and this vicarious liability apart from the injury attributed to him can also not be ruled out. Keeping all the features of the case, the number of injuries and the fact that the offence. Falls within the prohibitory clause into consideration, I am not inclined to admit the petitioner to bail. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. .
8. The aforestated resume demonstrates that the investigation in this case has been conducted in a most casual and slipshod manner. Most of the investigations are being spoiled in this way by the Investigating Agencies in not performing their duties in accordance with law. To avoid recurrence of such like dereliction in the performance of duty, office is directed to send copy of this order to the Secretary, Health, Government of the Punjab, as well as to the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, who shall in turn direct all the functionaries attached/connected in any manner with the investigation of the criminal cases to perform their duties strictly within the four corners of law and do not let the investigation of the cases be spoiled by default.
9. N.H.Q./N-52/L