' F.I.R. No,210/94, dated 27-6-1994 was drawn at Police Station Tatle Aali, District Gujranwala, under section 302/34/379, P.P.C. On the written complaint of Manzoor Ahmad, father of Khalid Pervez deceased, against Maqsood Ahmad, Mahmood Ahmad sons of Muhammad Akbar, Muhammad Nawaz, and Sana Ullah petitioners.
2. According to the F.I.R. On the day of occurrence, two unknown persons were grappling with Khalid Pervez deceased and one out of those two unknown persons fired at Khalid Pervez deceased resulting in his death. The occurrence was not witnessed by the first informant himself but he was informed about it and he was also told that two persons, namely, Inayat and Qamar had actually seen the occurrence.
3. The Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that the petitioners were innocent and had been falsely involved. This opinion of the Investigating Officer was confirmed by a Deputy Superintendent of Police. In the final report submitted by the Investigating Agencies under section 173, Cr.P.C. The petitioners having been found innocent were placed in Column No,2 of the challan, which was submitted on 21-8-1994.
4. Thus, on the prosecution own showing, reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners are guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life do not exist. At best, the case against the petitioners is a case of further inquiry within the meaning of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Which entitles them to the grant of bail.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that according to the final report submitted by the Investigating Officers, the real culprits were Tariq alias Tani and Tufail; that it was said Tufail who fired the fatal shot at the deceased; and that since the petitioners had been exonerated by the Investigating Officers themselves, therefore, they were entitled to the concession of bail by virtue of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the State contended that the latest investigation was conducted by the D.S.P., C.I.A., Gujranwala, and that according to this officer, the petitioners were guilty and that Inayat and Qamar had seen the occurrence and had attributed the fatal shot to Mahmood Ahmad, petitioner No,2.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant repeated the arguments of the learned counsel for the State.
8. It is now settled law that the opinion of Police Officers is not binding upon the Courts. It is also an equally settled principle of law that the benefit of doubt even at the stage of granting or declining to grant bail must be given to the accused because bail cannot be withheld as a punishment. It is for this reason that subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Provides that if it appears at any 9 stage of the investigation, inquiry or trial, as the case may be, that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed a non-boilable offence, but that there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry, into his guilt, the accused shall, pending such inquiry, be released on bail.
9. Resultantly, the ad interim bail granted to the petitioners vide order, dated 14-9-1994 is hereby confirmed.
Ad interim .