' Riaz Mahmood Butt alias Towna, petitioner, who is involved in a case under section 302/324/34, P.P.C., arising out of F.I.R. No, 104/91, dated 17-4.1991, registered at Police Station Shad Bagh, Lahore, seeks to be releasd on bail.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he fired at Saeed-uz- Zaman, which hit him on his chest and a minor girl named Amina also suffered an injury.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner 'claims bail on the ground that the petitioner was found innocent by the S.P. (City), Lahore, during the course of investigation, hence his case falls within the ambit of further inquiry and he is entitled to ball as a matter of right. Placed reliance on Zimni No, 32, dated 30-6-1991 of the S.P. City, and also the affidavit of one Abdul Waheed, father of minor girl Mst. Amina, who was allegedly injured in the occurrence. In the affidavit the deponent has stated that he told the persons present at the spot that some unknown person after injuring his daughter and Saeed-uz-Zaman had decamped in the darkness of night.
' On Court's direction, the S.P. City, Lahore has appeared. He submitted that he examined five persons, namely, Muhammad Siddique, Rauf Ahmed, Tariq Mahmood, Muhammad Bashir and Ghulam Muhammad, who deposed that the petitioner came at the spot when the incident was over. He further submitted that after secret and open enquiry he came to the conclusion that the petitioner did not join hands, with his co-accused and arrived at the spot immediately after the occurrence and that is why his name has been mentioned in the F.I.R.
4. Learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has urged that opinion of the Police Officer per se is not binding on the Court, but deserves to be given serious consideration and great weight, of course, depending upon the material on the basis of which this opinion is formed.
' Learned counsel for the complainant also submitted that opinion of the Police Officer is not binding on the Court, but the Court is required to probe into the matter further to find out whether this opinion is based on some concrete facts or not.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the police record I find substantial force in the submission of the learned counsel for the State and the complainant that the Court is bound to give due regard and weight to the opinion of the Police Officer, provided it is based upon certain concrete material. The examination of Zimni No, 18 and the one referred to above, on the basis of which the S.P. City came to the conclusion that the petitioner was involved falsely in this case, reveals that it depends on the oral assertions of certain persons, who are neither the witnesses nor residents of nearby vicinity, whereas the eye-witnesses in their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. Have supported the prosecution version in the F.I.R. In Barkha and antoher v. The State (1983 PCr. LJ 502), the eye-witnesses in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. Supported the allegation in the F.I.R. Certain respectables of the village who had not seen the occurrence and had no knowledge of whereabouts of accused at time of occurrence, deposed about the innocence of the accused. It was held that the evidence of the respectables of the village is hearsay evidence and should have no persuasive value even during the investigation of a case.
Ultimately, the learned Judge declined to admit the accused to bail, as direct evidence connecting him with the crime was available.
6. Following the observations in the above-referred case coupled with the fact that the trial has commenced, I do not think it desirable to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The under-consideration petition is accordinly dismissed.