IHSAN-UL-IIAQ CHAUDHARY, J.- This is an application for bo. It after arrest. Notice was issued to the State, which is represented by Mr. Am1 Advocate.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the petition argued that the S.P. Handed over the investigation to a team comprising of D.S.P. Narowal, D.S.P. Head quarter and the Inspector Legal. The team investigated the matter and concluded that the complainant party was the aggressor, the occurrence took place before the house of the petitioners and Arif died as a result of i.e by Sardar Muhammad Butt. The complainant party moved the I.G. Police for transfer of investigation. The same was accordingly made over to the D.S.P. Shakkar Garah, who agreed with the result of the investigation team. It is added that thereafter the report under section 173 Cr.P.C, was submitted and it was recommended that the petitioners should be discharged and instead nine persons from the complainant side should be tried for offence u/s 302/34 PPC. It is, therefore, argued that in any case it is a ease of further inquiry and the petitioners arc entitled to bail. In this behalf, reliance is placed on the judgment reported as Muhammad Sadiq Vs. Sadiq and others (PLD 1985 S.C. 182). The next submission is that although the petitioners had suffered 37 injuries in the occurrence yet the same have not been explained by the complainant in the FIR. It is added that a carbine was allegedly recovered from petitioner No. 1 but the same was not used and no empty was recovered from the spot, therefore, it is not a corroborative piece of evidence.
3. On the other had, the learned counsel for the complainant argued that the investigation team investigated the matter in the absence of the PWs and the complainant side. It is added that the occurrence took place in front of the house of the complainant as is clear from the site plan submitted with the incomplete challan. The arguments are summed-up with the submission that the subsequent investigations are mala i.e and tainted while the learned counsel for the State argued that as a result of the subsequent investigations was decided to prosecute the complainant and his party men for offence under section 302/34 PPC etc.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The admitted position is that the petitioners have been declared innocent by the investigating team and also by the D.S.P. Shakkar Gar ah. And in the final report under section 173 Cr .P.C., it has been recommended that they should be discharged from the case.
Be that as it may, it clearly makes out a case against them of further inquiry. The learned counsel for the petitioners has rightly referred to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as 'Muhammad Sadiq' (supra). The opinion of the investigating officer is relevant while granting the bail. I am fortified in my view with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Muhammad Afzal Vs. Nazir Ahmad and others (1984 SCM R 429).
5. The petitioners have suffered 37 injuries, which remained unexplained in the FIR. These are all injuries with blunt weapon, according to the subsequent investigation it was a free fight with sticks.
Since the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries of the petitioners therefore, the question whether the petitioners or the complainant party was the aggressor is yet to be determined at trial.
The petitioners are entitled to concession of bail in the meanwhile. In this behalf, learned counsel has referred to Muhammad Nazir Vs. Muhammad Sadiq and another (1978 SCM R 171) and Abbas Vs. The State (1983 P. Cr. LJ. 87).
6. The upshot of the above discussion is that this application is allowed. The petitioners are admitted to bail subject to each petitioner furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty i.e thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.