' This is an application for the grant of bail to Sultan Khan-petitioner in a case F.I.R. No,34, dated 9- 5-1995 registered under section 302/324/148/149, P.P.C. At Police Station Tammun on the report lodged by one Muhammad Yousaf son of Muhammad Aslam complainant.
2. According to the contents of the F.I.R., the complainant is the resident of Multan Khurd. On 9-5- 1995, at about 7-30 a.m. He alongwith his father Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Basharat brother of Sher Khan was going to his own Dhoke on a tractor-trolly to bring chaff from there. When they reached near Dhoke Sultan Khan within the area of Khushhal Garh at about 8-00 a.m. In the land belonging to Noor Khan, suddenly Sultan Khan, Ahmad Khan, Sher Afzal, Liaquat and Hamid Ullah armed with .7 mm rifle each and Muhammad Salim Akhtar armed with a hatchet came in front of them. They warned the complainant and said that they would teach them a lesson for using the path and surrounded the tractor on which the complainant party was sitting. Muhammad Aslam, father of the complainant, was driving the tractor on whom .Hamidullah accused fired with his rifle which struck on the tractor. The complainant's father stopped the tractor and they all got down with a view to save their lives, whereupon Hamidullah, Ahmad .Khan, Sher Afzal and Liaquat fired at Muhammad Basharat with their respective weapons, who sustained number of injuries on different parts of his body and fell down. Muhammad Aslam also caused an injury with his hatchet on him.
He also repeated the blow causing an injury on the head of complainant's father who too fell down on the spot. Sultan Khan-petitioner allegedly fired number of shots on Sher Khan who sustained number of injuries on different parts of his body, as a result of which he also fell down. Sher Afzal and Hamidullah also fired on the complainant with their respective weapons, who sustained injuries on the right arm who also fell down.
' The occurrence was witnessed by Amir Khan and Baz Khan. After having seen the P.Ws., they ran away from the spot. The motive for the alleged crime as mentioned in the F.I.R. Is that Sultan etc. Had some suspicion about Muhammad Basharat having illicit relations with the wife of Hamidullah accused. It is also mentioned in the F.I.R. That some time back prior to the present occurrence, the complainant party was restrained not to pass in front of their house.
3. After the registration of the case, the investigation was carried out by the S.H.O. Who gave final opinion holding all the accused guilty. On the application submitted by the accused party,' the investigation of this case was assigned to Raja Munawar, D.S.P. But he gave no finding regarding in culpability of the accused. However, in the report submitted by him under section 173, Cr.P.C. He mentioned that all the accused be challenged to Court. Thereafter,' the investigation was entrusted to Khadim Hussain Shah, D.S.P. Who recorded certain statements of the P.Ws. Produced by both the parties. Learned counsel submits that as per findings of the said D.S.P., Sultan petitioner was found innocent, but despite this fact his name was not mentioned in column No,2 of the challan and placed in column No,3 which is meant for regular accused. However, the aforesaid D.S.P. Also directed that the petitioner be also challenged to Court for trial.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks bail on the grounds that in this case there are two eye- witnesses who are related inter se and they also deposed against the accused/petitioner falsely; that the opinion of the Investigating Officer/D.S.P. Is in favour of the pe4itioner who was declared as innocent by the two Investigating Officers; that the finding of the police is based on cogent reason inasmuch as 250 persons produced by the petitioner supported his nnocence; that the complainant's party suppressed a material fact with regard to the injuries suffered by one of the accused namely Muhammad Salim Akhtar, who sustained four injuries, out of which one injury was on his vital part of the body i,e, the head; that there is a cross-version and a private complaint was filed by the accused party in the Court of Ilaqa Magistrate stating therein that the complainant party was aggressor and they also suppressed the injuries sustained by Muhammad Salim Akhtar.
Lastly, learned counsel submits that the petitioner is an old and infirm person having 60 years of age, therefore, he may be released on bail.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the grant of bail vehemently on the ground that it is a day time occurrence and it is a case of double murder; that the petitioner was armed with fire-arm which he effectively used and because of his firing, one of the deceased namely Sher Khan expired; that during the investigation, the petitioner never took the plea that Muhammad Salim Akhtar co- accused was injured in the occurrence; that the petitioner was never declared as innocent and his name was placed' in column No,3 of the challan and now he is facing the trial; that the statements of twelve witnesses have already been recorded and the case is now fixed for recording the remaining prosecution evidence on 2-4-1996. While rebutting the arguments of the learned State Counsel, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the evidence of the doctor was recorded, but no question regarding the injuries sustained by Muhammad Salim Akhtar was put to him.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Admittedly, the trial of the case is in progress and the statements of twelve witnesses have already been recorded therein. According to the learned State Counsel, on 13-3-1996 because of the absence of learned defence counsel, the case was adjourned to 2-4-1996. At this stage, it will be inapt to express comments on the merits of the case as it may prejudice the case of either side. But one fact is clear that the petitioner is also facing the trial as his name has been placed in column No,3 of the challan which is meant for regular accused. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the evidence led by two eyewitnesses may not be relied upon on account of their relationship inter se. I am of the view that deeper appreciation of the prosecution evidence at bail stage is not warranted by law, as the same shall be evaluated by the learned trial Court at the time of final decision of the case. The allegation against the petitioner is that he fired at one of the deceased namely Sher Khan as a result of which he died. Under these circumstances, I do not see any reason to enlarge the petitioner on bail. His bail petition stands dismissed.