' The petitioner is involved in case F.I.R. No,145/94, dated 30-5-1994 registered under section 302/34, P.P.C. At Police Station, Wahando, District Gujranwala which was registered for an occurrence which took place on 30-5-1994 at about 4 p.m. And the matter was reported at 8-00 p.m. By Munir Ahmed. The petitioner, through this petition, seeks post-arrest bail in the abovesaid case.
2. The facts in brief as narrated by the complainant are; that on 30-5-1994 at about 4-00 p.m. The accused Mahmood Ahmed and Niamat Ali while armed with 222 rifle and a pistol respectively and Abdul Ghafoor, petitioner herein, also armed with pistol launched a murderous assault on Liaquat Ali, deceased while firing with their respective weapons from the roof of the shop of one Nawaz, hitting the deceased on his head and legs, who after sustaining injuries caused by fire-arms, succumbed to the injuries at the spot.
3. The bail petition was moved in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala and the same was declined vide order, 25-10-1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case whereas he was not present at the spot. The investigation was conducted by the local police and the same was verified by the D.S.P./S.D.P.O. Of the same circle. The petitioner was declared innocent and his name was placed in Column No,2 of the challan. The petitioner was arrested on 5-7-1994 and since then he is in the judicial lock-up. He is no more required for the purpose of investigation. The learned counsel very vehemently argued that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner and he is entitled to have a concession of bail.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has very emphatically opposed the bail petition on the ground that the petitioner has committed a very heinous crime and the challan has already been submitted in the Court, the cognizance of which has been taken by the learned trial Court. The findings/opinion of the police in the investigation has no binding force on the Court while deciding the bail petition of the petitioner.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at full length and have also perused the record with their assistance.
7. The perusal of the record indicates that the deceased suffered as many as nine fire-arms injuries on the different parts of his body and according to the post-mortem report the Medical Officer has opined that the death of Liaquat Ali has occurred due to intra-thoracic haemorrhage excessive bleeding from fracture sites and as a result of injuries Nos.1, 3 and 7 collectively. He further opined that these injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
8. Though the Police Officer has given his finding regarding the innocence of the petitioner yet this finding has no binding force on the Court while deciding the bail petition. The findings of the Investigating Officer is to be seen in the perspective of the case. This is a daylight murder. A specific role has been attributed to the petitioner, who having been armed with deadly weapon alongwith his co-accused in furtherance of their common intention launched the murderous assault on the deceased. The eye-witnesses have already supported the story of the prosecution.
The allegations are, indeed, serious in nature. The petitioner fully participated in the occurrence as already alleged in the F.I.R. Prima facie, the reasonable grounds are available to believe that the petitioner is an accused of offence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. As such no relief can be given at this stage of the case and that too without commenting upon the merits of the case so that it may not prejudice the case of either party.
' In these circumstances, I am not inclined to admit the petitioner to bail. The petition fails and the same is dismissed.