' The petitioner has applied for pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him vide F.I.R. No,99, dated 28-6-1990 for an offence under section 307/148/149, P.P.C. at P.S. Chauntrah, District Rawalpindi. The petitioner was said to be armed with a pistol and had fired at Muhammad Akram causing two injuries on his right arm and hand.
2. The counter-version of the occurrence was recorded at the police station on the same day vide Report No,16 at the instance of Gulfraz Khan Moharrer, A.S.I. in which he stated that Muhammad Altaf (complainant in the present case) alongwith 5 others namely,' Muhammad Ilyas, Muhammad Mushtaq, Walayat Khan, Muhammad Amir and Muhammd Akram attacked him and his companions including Hashmat Khan (father of the petitioner) Abdul Rehman, Mohabat Khan and Masood Anwar (brother of the petitioner). Hashmat was given one hatchet blow by Muhamamd Ilyis and a soti blow by Muhammad Amir. Masood Anwar was given a hatchet blow on the head by Muhammad Altaf. Finding that the investigation of the case was not satisfactory, a complaint was filed by Muhammad Azad, nephew of Hashmat Khan, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate Section 30 against six accused persons out of whom 4 accused namely Muhammad Altaf, Muhammad Ilyas, Muhammad Mushtaq and Walayat Khan have been summoned.
3. The petitioner and his father Hashmat Khan had applied for pre-arrest bail which was refused by the learned A.S.J., Rawalpindi vide his order dated 29-7-1990. The petitioner was arrested and remained in police custody till 6-8-1990. He was presented before the Magistrate on 6-8-1990 who ordered his discharge from the case but the said order was set aside by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 5-5-1991 in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction. The petitioner again applied for pre-arrest bail which was refused by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi vide his order dated 1-6-1991.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State at some length. Admittedly, the case involves two versions and at this stage it cannot be said with certainty as to which one is true.
The counter-version was promptly advanced before the police on the same day and thereafter the private complaint was lodged in which 4 accused persons have been summoned to face their trial for an offence under section 307/336/34, P.P.C. In the private complaint it has been mentioned that the petitioner's brother Masood Anwar and uncle Mohabbat Khan were injured by the accused persons. The petitioner had specifically advanced the plea of alibi which was supported by Muhammad Javaid, Assistant District Attorney, Murree, Malik Ali Haider, Reader of Resident Magistrate, Murree, Gulzar Ahmad Constable/Naib-Court to A.C., Murree and Ejaz Ahmad Constable, Treasury Guard, Murree, Muhammad Riaz Constable, Treasury Guard Murree and a few other persons but strangely enough the police did not probe into the veracity of the said plea. This smacks of mala fides on the part of the police. The possibility that the petitioner has been roped in due to his relationship with the two injured persons mentioned in the private complaint cannot be ruled out.
5. I, therefore, accept this petition and confirm the interim bail already granted to the petitioner. He is, however, directed to join the investigation of the case if so required by the police.