KHALID PAUL KHWAJA, J. - On 16.5.1996 at 4.00 p.m. a case under sections 302, 148 and 149 PPC was registered at Police Station Saddar Jhang against Iqbal, Azhar, Kameer, Arif, Qasim, Riaz and two unknown persons at the instance of Ghulam Muhammad complainant. It was- alleged that the aforesaid accused while armed with fire-arms had launched a murderous assault on Falak Sher (he son of the complainant and caused his death.
2. On 7.6.1996 in his supplementary statement the complainant stated that iwo unknown persons were Safdar and Zulfiqar.
3. Muhammad Iqbal and Azhar accused, petitioners herein who were arrested on 7.6.1996 have applied for their post arrest bail.
4. I have heard the parties' learned counsel and have also gone through the record.
5. According to the FIR, Iqbal and Azhar petitioners were armed with 30- bore pistols. The former had allegedly fired two shots which had hit the deceased on his ear and cheek while Azhar petitioner had fired a shot at the deceased which had hit him on his left hand.
6. The case was initially investigated by Inspector Ashiq Ali who on 15.6.1996 declared that both the petitioners were innocent. The case was again investigated by Mukhtar Ali Inspector Range Crime, Faisalabad who also came to the same conclusion stating that the petitioners were neither present at the spot nor had participated. In the occurrence.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since the petitioners had been declared innocent by the police, enmity between the parties was established, no recovery had been effected from them and there was a conflict between the medical evidence and the ocular evidence with regard to the injury attributed to Iqbal, the petitioners were entitled to the concession of bail.
8. Learned counsel for the State did not oppose the bail application. However, learned counsel for the complainant opposed the same contending that no deeper appreciation of evidence was allowed at the stage of bail.
9. Iqbal petitioner is an eye-witness against the complainant party in the murder case of Mukhtar while Azhar petitioner's father Dilmeer was a prosecution witness of conspiracy against the accused in the said case. Prima facie it shows that there is a background of enmity between the petitioners on the one hand and the complainant party on the other hand. It is an admitted fact that no recovery had been effected from the petitioners in this case during the investigation.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the injury located on the cheek of Falak Slier deceased which had been attributed to Iqbal petitioner has been mentioned as an exit wound in the Post-mortem Examination report and therefore, the medical evidence was in contradiction with the ocular evidence. He submitted that in the presence of any such conflict the benefit of doubt would go to the accused and the petitioners would be entitled to the grant of bail. In this connection he has relied on a number of authorities including Muhammad Amir and 2 others v. The State (1985 SCM R 565). In the said case bail was allowed to the accused on the basis of a conflict between the medical and ocular evidence holding that it was a case of further inquiry. No case law was cited from the opposite side.
11. In view of what has been stated above, when the petitioners had been declared innocent by two Investigating Officers, there was a background of enmity between the parties, there was a conflict between the ocular and medical evidence and no recovery had been effected from the petitioners, this is a fit case for further inquiry. I, therefore, admit the petitioners to bail in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate, Jhang.