' Akbar Masih petitioner through this petition seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,121/94 under section 302/324/148/149, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station "B" Division, District Kasur.
2. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the F.I.R. That Barkat Masih complainant lodged a report on 26-3-1994 alleging that Akbar Masih (petitioner), Asghar Masih, Shera Masih all armed with revolvers, Hayat Masih and Papu Masih armed with pistol while Mst. Mumtaz Bibi armed with iron pipe attacked upon the complainant party as a result of which Mansha Masih died and Moti Masih received injuries. The role attributed to the petitioner is that he raised Lalkara and made fire at Mansha Masih which hit on his right flank.
3. In support of the petition learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been found innocent by three consecutive investigations; Mst. Mumtaz Bibi who allegedly injured the complainant was also found innocent and has been discharged against which order no appeal or revision has been filed. He submitted that co-accused, namely, Asghar Masih and Hayat Masih were also found innocent by the police and placed in Column No,2 and further both have been allowed bail on 18-12-1994. According to learned counsel no recovery has been effected from the petitioner and his case at par that Asghar Masih and Hayat Masih should have been released on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant opposed the petition and vehemently contended that the report of Investigating Officer is not binding upon the Court as laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan and further that the petitioner has been placed in Column No,3 and not in Column No,2.
Learned counsel for the State followed the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant.
5. I have heard learned counsel for all the sides. Indeed the finding of the Investigation Officer is not binding on the Court but same cannot be ignored as the Court has to see whether on the basis of material on record the accused has or has not committed an offence as laid down in the case of Ghulam Rasul v. The State 1982 SCM R 440. In this precedent, it was held that weight can be attached to result of investigation and bail should never be withheld as a punishment. Reference may also advantageously be made to the case Ch. Abdul Malik v. The State PLD 1968 SC 349. The petitioner has been found innocent by three different Investigating Officers. Further, the alleged incriminating weapon has not been recovered; Mumtaz Begum, who caused injury to the complainant has been discharged, the other two co-accused have also been released on bail. The petitioner's case, as such, prima facie appears to be one of further inquiry and in a case of further inquiry, bail cannot be with-held on the ground of practice and the accused becomes entitled as right of bail. It has been so laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafique PLD 1989 SC 585.
' In view of above and in keeping with the rule of consistency, the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Kasur.