' Muhammad Shabbir petitioner seeks his bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,21 of 1996, dated 1-2-1996 initially registered under sections 337-F(i)(ii) and 379/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Dera Raheem, District Sahiwal but subsequently on the death of the deceased Asghar Ali, section 302, P.P.C. Was added during the course of investigation.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 30-1-1996 at about 2 p.m. Shabbir petitioner was cutting the Keekar tree standing on the State land. He was restrained by Ghulam Mustafa P.W. But feeling annoyed Shabbir petitioner had a quarrel with him and caused him an injury with his hatchet and made good his escape. It was subsequent thereto the complainant party was passing in front of the house of the petitioner when the petitioner along with his father Majeed armed with hatchets and Shafiq armed with a dagger appeared at the spot. Majeed raised Lalkara, in consequence of which Shafiq, co-accused of the petitioner caused a dagger blow on the person of Asghar Ali, while Majeed gave him an injury with hatchet at his thigh. Muhammad Ramzan P.W. Tried to intervene but he was given an injury on his shoulder by Shabbir petitioner with wrong side of the hatchet.
Asghar Ali was then taken to the hospital where he succumbed to his injuries on 7-2-1996. The petitioner had applied for bail after arrest before the learned Additional Sessions Judge but the same was refused on 22-4-1996. Hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner has not been attributed any injury on the person of the deceased; that he is alleged to have given injury to Muhammad Ramzan P.W. Which was on the non-vital part of the body and was declared as Ghayr Jaifah Damiyah, punishable with one year's R.I. The other injury allegedly inflicted by the petitioner on the person of Ghulam Mustafa P.W. Was also declared as Ghayr Jaifah Badrah, punishable with three years' R.I.; that during the course of occurrence, Majeed and Shafiq, father and brother of the petitioner were also injured but their injuries were suppressed by the prosecution. That during the investigation conducted by Dur Muhammad Mumtaz, S.-I. At the spot, the petitioner was declared innocent. This investigation was subsequently verified by a Senior Police Officer namely Dilshad Khan, D.S.P., Saddar, Sahiwal, who after due investigations also exonerated the petitioner from the commission of the alleged offence by declaring him innocent and the petitioner was ordered to be placed in column No,2 of the challan. Lastly it was submitted that the accused/petitioner was arrested on 27-2-1996 and there was no progress at the trial.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner by submitting that the petitioner was the main cause of the offence as he had initiated the quarrel by giving an injury on the person of Ghulam Mustafa P.W. Further submits that the petitioner has also taken part in the main occurrence by giving injury on the person of Muhammad Ramzan P.W. Who was trying to rescue the victim of the offence. Learned counsel lastly submits that the opinion of the police is not binding on the Courts and may not be attached any importance as the same was not based on reasonable grounds.
5. Learned counsel for the State has not been able to controvert the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and admits that according to the police record both the Investigating Officers had found the petitioner innocent and he was finally placed in column No,2 of the challan.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
7. The petitioner has not been attributed any injury on the person of Asghar Ali deceased. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he has caused injuries on the person of Ghulam Mustafa and Muhammad Ramzan P.Ws. Which were declared simple and were located on the non-vital parts of the bodies of two witnesses. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner was declared innocent during the two successive investigations and was placed in column No,2 of the challan Although the Courts are not bound by the ipsi dixit of the police. But the same cannot be brushed aside while considering the question of grant of hail to the petitioner, because sufficient weight was to be attached to the result of the investigation, particularly when an accused was placed in column No, 2 of the challan on account of the said investigation. Reliance in this respect is placed on Ghulam Rasul v. The State 1982 SCM R 440.
8. The guilt or innocence of the petitioner being subject to further inquiry, his case would fall in the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Thus C entitling the petitioner to the concession of bail.
9. Under the above circumstances and without going deep into the merits of the case, the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,75,000 (Rupees seventy-five thousand only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.