S.M.ZUBAIR, J.- The petitioner, who is involved in a case under Section 302 P.P.C, arising out of F.I.R.
No.444/93, dated 13.12.1993 registered at Police Station Saddar Depalpur, District Okara, seeks to be admitted to bail.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner is not a nominated accused on the contrary Muhammad Sharif is named as the sole accused in this case in an occurrence which took place in the broad day light and the FIR was lodged by the other of the deceased but the police did not associate said Muhammad Sharif in this case but instead made the petitioner as scape-goat and involved him in this case. He has stated that it is for the first lime that on 15.12.1993 Pervaiz Akhtar am1 Jamal Din made statements before the police that it was Javaid Iqbal petitioner who committed the murder which statement was blindly followed by the police which shows mala-fide of the police. The police did not even examine Muhammad Sharif and perusal of the zimnis show that Muhammad Sharif did not appear before the police although initially the raid was conducted by the S.H.O. P.S. Depalpur on 13.12.1993 but he was not available.
Had he been innocent he would have in normal course appeared before the police. Learned counsel further contended that the police in order to oblige said Muhammad Sharif has cooked up a false defence version and made the petitioner as accused, but the D.S.P, in his zimni No.16, dated 15.1.1994 came to the conclusion that the rifle of Muhammad Sharif went OF accidentally when it was in the hands of the petitioner thereby caused death of Muhammad Akhtar but in spile of this finding he never recommended for the change of the offence and the case remained under Section 302 P.P.C. Due to exemption in the Pakistan Penal Code if the murder was committed accidently, it may not be a case which falls within the prohibitory clause; hence it is a case of further inquiry as it would be determined after the recording of some evidence by the Court whether actually the cooked up version given by the police in the investigation without associating the accused mentioned in the PIR is correct or not; so the petitioner is entitled to the grant of bail.
3. Learned counsel for the Slate assisted by the police officer blindly supported the police version without seeking any support from the record.
4. I have the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record as well as the police i.e. Admittedly, the petitioner is not a nominated accused; on the contrary one Muhammad Sharif is nominated as sole accused in this occurrence, It appears that initially some attempts were made by the local police to arrest said Muhammad Sharif but later on the police took somersault and instead of arresting Use nominated accused they recorded the statements of Pervaiz Akhtar and Jamal Din on 15.12.1993, on the basis of which they arrested the petitioner in this case. The case against the petitioner seems to be one of further inquiry, as it would be determined after the recording of detailed evidence by the Court which version is correct; whether the version given in the FIR lodged by the mother of the deceased is correct or me version given by the police which is open to serious objection is correct; hence the petitioner is admitted to bail provided lie furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,0Q0\- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to (lie sat!..Faction of A.C. Depalpur.