Zulifqar Ali petitioner has sought bail after arrest in a case F.I.R. No.267/95 dated 14-8-1995 under section 302/34, P.P.C., P.S. Baseer Pur, District Okara, registered on the complaint of Muhammad Hussain for an occurrence which took place on 13-8-1995 at ' Shaam Wela' in the area of Kot Sher Khan, 8 K.M. From Police Station Baseer Pur.
2. On 13-8-1995 in the evening time a Kabaddi match was being played in fair of Kot Sher Khan; complainant, Ghulam Ahmad, Zulifqar and Iftikhar -Ahmad were amongst the participants.
Ghulam Ahmad raised Lalkara that Beffey Khan be caught and murdered. Thereupon, Iftikhar alias Majhoo co---accused armed with 32 bore revolver fired, which hit on the left shoulder of Beffey Khan. He repeated the fire and caused injury on the right side of his buttock. Zulifqar Ali petitioner allegedly fired with his .30 bore pistol and caused injury on the front of his abdomen and on the right flank. The occurrence was witnessed by Barash Ali, Muhammad Naoshad and the complainant.
3. Learned petitioner's counsel argued that the F.I.R. Was lodged after an unexplained delay of 12 hours and that petitioner and his co-accused Iftikhar Ahmad received injuries during the occurrence and the prosecution has suppressed their injuries and that no weapon of offence was recovered from or at the instance of the petitioner during the investigation, in spite of physical remand and that Inspector, D.S.P., Dipalpur and D.S.P. Okara opined that petitioner though present at the time of occurrence did not cause injury to anyone; that he was not armed at the time of occurrence; that the accused party filed complaint against complainant party of this case and preliminary evidence has been recorded in the complaint, and that the case of the petitioner-falls under section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
4. Learned State Counsel argued that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. With specific role and that the offence alleged against the petitioner falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. .
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully.
6. According to the contents of the F.I.R., three shots were effectively fired at Beffey Khan, deceased; two were fired by Iftikhar Ahmad co-accused and petitioner fired a single fire which allegedly hit on the stomach and right flank of the deceased. Post-mortem report shows that Beffey Khan deceased received a lacerated wound 1/2 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. Into deep going, margins inverted with slight blackening at frontal, outer and upper part of the left chest. This entry wound made an exit wound 1 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. Margin everted at back and upper part of right chest 5 c.m. Below the shoulder line.
Similarly a lacerated wound 1/2 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. Deep going, margins inverted at front and lower chest slightly on right side 1.5 c.m. From mid-line. This injury also made its exit at posto lateral position of lower part of right chest 12 c.m. From mid line of back. This would show that deceased received two fire shots and not three, as mentioned in the F.I.R. The medical evidence is not in conformity with the ocular account.
7. Medico-legal Report No.43 shows that the petitioner received 13 injuries with blunt weapon; Iftikhar Ahmad co-accused received 20 injuries with blunt weapon. Both were medically examined on 14-8-1995 at 5-30 a.m. The prosecution has suppressed the injuries received by the petitioner and his co---accused Iftikhar Ahmad, which are 33 in number.
8. That Inspector, S.H.O. Vide Ziminis dated . 23-9-1995, D.S.P./ S.D.P.O., Dipalpur dated 27-9-1995 and D.S.P.; City Okara dated 8-1-1996 unanimously found that petitioner though present at the time of occurrence was not armed with any fire-arm weapon and did not cause injury to the deceased. He tried to save Iftikhar Ahmad co-accused who was given beating by the complainant party. The motive as set up by the complainant was also not found correct and the Investigating Officers held that the occurrence took place at the spur of the moment during Kabaddi match without any premeditation. On 27-9-1995 similar opinion was mentioned in the report prepared under section 173, Cr.P.C.
9. The upshot of the discussion is that the F.I.R. Was lodged after an unexplained delay of 12 hours.
The medical evidence was not in conformity with the ocular account; the injuries on the person of accused were suppressed by the prosecution. During the successive investigations, though, the petitioner was found present at the place of occurrence but did not cause fire-arm injury to the A deceased as claimed by the prosecution. The opinion of the police is not binding upon the Courts, but being adverse to the prosecution, created doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case, which was resolved in favour of the petitioner even at the stage of bail. Reliance placed on 1984 SCM R 429 and 1984 SCM R 521. .
10. For what has been stated above, it appears that there exist no reasonable ground for believing that petitioner has committed non-bailable offence but there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner which brings the case of the petitioner within the ambit of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. B which entitles him for the grant of bail. The bail petition is accepted and the petitioner Zulfiqar is directed to be released on bail provided he furnishes bail--bond in the sum of Rs one lac with two sureties each in the like amount to the j satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Depalpur. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.