' The above-captioned revision petition has been filed against the order passed by Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Bhimber on 14th of March, 1992, whereby the concession of bail allowed to accused-respondent in a case registered with Police Station Chowki, Tehsil Bhimber vide First Information Report No,48 of 15th of July, 1991, under section 5/34 of the Islamic Penal Laws Act of 1974.
2. The facts as disclosed in the first information report briefly stated are that Gulzar Ahmed Khan the real brother of Amir Ahmed (deceased), lodged a written report with Police Station Chowki on 15th of July, 1991, alleging therein that at about 5-30 a.m., the complainant was present in the courtyard of his house when Adalat Khan son of Khan Muhammad enquired from him about his deceased brother Amir Ahmed Khan. He told Adalat Khan that Amir Khan was in the bath room of the house. According to the complainant, he came out from the courtyard and in the meantime, Amir Ahmed Khan came out from the bath room on which Adalat Khan raised "Lalkara" and instigated co-accused Farooq to fire at him. Farooq co-accused who was carrying double barrel gun. Fired at Amir Ahmed Khan who by receiving injury due to this fire, fell down. It is further mentioned in the first information report that Khaliq Hussain, Inayat Khan, Ahmed Khan, Mukhtar Hussain, Muhammad Nazir and Jamroz Khan residents. Of Kala Dab Charrohi and one Nasibullah had cordoned the house of the complainant and his brother and were armed with deadly weapons. After the report of fire, all the accused persons started running away from the house of the complainant. On this report, a case under. Section 5 of the Islamic Penal Laws Act read with section 34, A.P.C. Was registered against the accused-respondents. The police started investigation during which on the same day, recorded the statement of the complainant who narrated the same story which he had given in the written complaint earlier. However, Mst. Shahnaz Akhtar whose statement was recorded on 16th of July, 1991, stated that she was inside the house when on the report of fire, she came out and found her husband in an injured state oft. Position. On enquiry, she was told that Farooq on the instigation of Adalat Khan, fired at her husband. According to this witness, Amir Ahmed Khan was firstly taken to Barwah Dispensary where he was given first aid and subsequently he was taken to hospital where he succumbed to the injuries. After about four months, some fresh statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. And attributed to these witnesses are on the record, wherein the present accused-respondent Muhammad Anwar has been held responsible for causing injuries with double barrel gun on the person of Ainir Ahmed Khan (deceased). The Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Bhimber after taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case, allowed concession of bail in favour of the accused-respondent vide impugned order. The mother of the deceased feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid order of the trial Court has filed the present revision petition for setting aside the same.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case and police diary.
4. In this case, first information report was lodged by the real brother of the deceased wherein the accused-respondent was not named as an assailant. The case of the accused-respondent is that due to the influence of the accused persons mentioned in the F.I.R. He has been roped this case out of past enmity whereas he has not committed any offence. After about four months of the incident, the accused-respondent has been attributed to have fired a fatal shot due to which Amir Ahmed Khan (deceased) died. No reason has been assigned as to why the previous statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. Were cancelled which were recorded soon after the occurrence by the police wherein no allegation was levelled against the accused-respondent. The statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C., after four months of the occurrence are prima facie, not free from doubt, particularly when no reason has been shown as to why the previous statements and F.I.R. Lodged in this case were not considered to be correct.
5. In the light of the above observations, the bail was rightly allowed by the Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Bhimber as the case of the accused-respondent definitely falls under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The impugned order does not call for interference by this Court, as such the revision petition being without merits, stands dismissed.