ORDER RAO NAEEM HASHIM KHAN, J.- Petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him vide FIR No. 14/96, dated 23.1.96 under Sections 364(A)/34/324 Q&D Ordinance /302/201/148/149 PPC at P.S.Kot Lakhpat Lahore.
2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that on 23.1.96 at 8:15 a.m near Jahangir Park Chowk, accused Abbas alias Basu armed with carbine, Muhammad Saleem alias Kaloo armed with mauser, Mushtaq Ali alias Mushtaqi armed with mauser and Qamar Shahid alias Shahid Mayo armed with mauzer came out of white car No. LOK-7087. Abbas accused raised lalkara that Zafar Mehmood should be taught a lesson for lodging the FIR and fired at Zafar Mehmood, Mushtaq and Shahid Mayo also raised lalkara that Zafar Mehmood be killed. Saleem fired at Zafar Mehmood who fell down on the ground. The complainant, Ejaz. And Shahid Mehmood came forward but Mushtaq and Shahid Mayo started firing on them and also raised lalkara that they would kill them if they came forward, In the meantime. Abbas and Saleem fired at Zafar Mehmood who ultimately succumbed to the injuries.
3. It is alleged that the petitioner is innocent and has been involved in this case with ulterior motive on account of filing of writ petition No. 3203/96 in the Honorables High Court. Moreoever, he has been declared innocent by the Investigating Off cer and has requested for grant of bai I to the petitioner.
3. The contentions are opposed by-the learned counsel "for the complainant as well as by the learned State counsel and request is made for rejection of bail because recovery of mauser has to be effected from the petitioner.
3. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file.
4. On 22.3.96, S.S.P. Security, Lahore/Investigating Officer was asked to submit comprehensive report with regard to his investigation. The aforesaid officer has opined vide Ruppet No. 58 dated 25.4.96 where if is mentioned in the last para which is re-produced as under:- {{Urdu Text}}
5. It is established law that opinion of the Investigating Officer is not binding ipse dixit upon the Court. It is a day time occurrence. All the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution story. Petitioner is nominated in the FIR and specific role has been attributed to him.
6. The involvement of the petitioner with ulterior motive on ground of filing of writ petition No. 3203/96 does not hold good because the FIR was registered on 23.1.96 and the aforesaid writ petition was filed on 24.2.96. The occurrence took place on 23.1.96 at 8:15 a.m and statement of the complainant was recorded at 9:30 a.m on the same day. So question of false involvement/substitution/addition with ulterior motive is ruled out. Petitioner has committed a very heinous offence and is not entitled to any extra- ordinary concession of pre-arrest bail. This petition has no merits and same is hereby dismissed.