' This application under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. Has been moved by the petitioner calling in question the order, dated 21-3-1997 passed by a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chakwal, whereby he granted bail to the respondents Nos.1 and 2, namely, Muhammad Maroof and Muhammad Ehsan, accused in a case under section 302/34, P.P.C. Registered against them at Police Station Dhuman, District Chakwal vide F.I.R. No,114 of 1996, dated 1-10-1996 for the allegation of committing the murder of a young lady, namely, Mst. Farzana Yasmeen.
2. Initially the case was registered under section 324/34, P.P.C. At 7-50 p.m. On 1-10-1996 on the statement of deceased lady in injured condition to the effect that at about 6-30 p.m. On the same day, respondents Nos.1 and 2 sprinkled kerosine oil on her in the street in front of her house and blazed fire on her, as a result of which she received burn injuries on her arms, neck, legs and other parts of the body. Hue and cry of the complainant attracted her mother and maternal-uncle, namely Sajawal to the scene, who witnessed the occurrence.
3. The motive behind this occurrence as stated was that in murder case of Hafeez, a relative of the accused, the real brother of Mst. Farzana Yasmeen, was challaned, who on conviction was in jail and the accused in order to satisfy themselves made her victim of their revenge. The burn injuries on different parts of the body of the deceased, as disclosed in the F.I.R., were traced in her medical examination conducted by a Woman Medical Officer, D.H.Q. Hospital, Chakwal at 8-40 p.m. On the same day. After the death of Mst. Farzana Yasmeen, the case was converted to section 302/34, P.P.C.
' As per medical report deceased sustained the following burn injuries:--
(1) Front of neck and back of neck, 2/3%.
(2) Chest wall and abdomen well 18%.
(3) Whole of back and chest limbo also 18%.
(4) Back and front of thighs and back of knee joint 12%.
(5) Both upper Lims 18%.
' Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chakwal allowed post-arrest bail to the respondents with the following observation:-- "That the prosecution version was not convincing and that opinion expressed by the D.S.P. (Legal) and D.S.P. Saddar, Chakwal was plausible to be accepted."
' The opinion expressed by the abovesaid Police Officers, on the basis of which, the Superintendent of Police. Chakwal recommended the discharge of accused and cancellation of case, is incorporated in the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Chakwal to this Court, in the following manner:-- "That the statement of injured complainant is disputed as the same was recorded by the Investigating Officer in the presence of her relative and that she remained admitted in D.H.Q.
Hospital, Chakwal for 10 days and during which period her dying declaration was not recorded; that there is no impartial evidence and both the eye-witnesses are interested being mother and maternal-uncle of the deceased. The parties carried enmity with each other due to a murder case in which brother of the deceased girl was sentenced to death and that no independent person from the locality supported the prosecution version."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the opinion of the Investigating Officer being based on presumption and not supported by any material available on record, the grant of bail to the respondents on such grlund was not proper exercise of the discretion. He argued that prima facie there being reasonable grounds to believe that the respondents have committed an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, the bail could not be granted disbelieving the presence of evidence on the basis of opinion of Investigating Officer. He seeks cancellation of bail raising contention that the learned Additional Sessions Judge giving undue consideration and weight to the opinion of Police Officer artificially brought the case within the ambit of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Learned State Counsel supported the cancellation of bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and also perused the record. The occurrence having taken place in the street in front of the house of the deceased at 6-30 p.m. Was reported to the police within 45 minutes, whereupon the case was registered on the statement of the deceased lady. The burn injuries allegedly caused by the respondent through blazing the fire after throwing kerosine oil on the deceased are find mentioned in the medical report. The two natural witnesses, the mother and maternal-uncle of the deceased supported the statement of allegation made by the deceased against the respondents. Without commenting upon the credibility of the witnesses and the status of statement of the deceased laddy, the tentative assessm ent of direct evidence being permissible, the bail for the consideration of previous enmity and relationship of witnesses with the deceased cannot be granted. The critical appreciation of the evidence on the basis of opinion formed by the Police Officer factually having no nexus with the bail matter, the process of deep appreciation of evidence and that too by police and not through the judicial awareness of learned Judge was not proper. The appreciation of the evidence in the manner with the purpose to impeach the credibility of the witnesses at the time of disposal of ancillary matter is not permissible under law, therefore, the finding of false implication due to previous enmity and exclusion of the evidence of eyewitnesses from consideration with the possibility of thei- suppressing the truth of matter amounts to dislodge the actual story and decide the fate of case at this premature stage. The opinion of D.S.P. Saddar and D.S.P. (Legal based on appraisal of evidence carries no weight to be given effect in favour of an accused or reject the evidence in toto in such manner in such serious cases.
6. The perusal of the opinion of the Police Officers shows that they assuming the role of trial Court criticising the conduct of the witnesses and the deceased, judging the admissibility of the dying declaration and the possibility of the receiving injuries by the deceased in some other manner disbelieved the A story of F.I.R. Amply supported by the two P.Ws. And medical evidence. The recommendation for the discharge of the accused and cancellation of case for such consideration, being in departure to the principal laid down by the superior Courts was not fair and justified. Under the scheme of Criminal Procedure Code, the D.S.P. (Legal) has no role in the investigation of cases directly instead as per internal arrangement he discharges his functions in aid to the Investigating Agencies in the police department and is not supposed to make detailed scrutiny of evidence at pre-trial stage and reject the prosecution evidence. The opinion of Investigating Officer regarding the innocence of accused must be based on the material relevant to the facts of the case and not on the inferences drawn through personal thinking. There is mass of cases decided by the superior Courts wherein it has been held that the ipse dixit of the police is not at all binding to decide the fate of a criminal case. The statement of C allegations made in the F.I.R. Supported by direct evidence cannot be kept out of consideration at bail stage for the reason that a second statement of the deceased lady was not recorded during the period she remained in hospital. The admissibility of the evidence or credibility of the witnesses, the quality and the standard of evidence for decision of the case at trial is not adjudicateable by the agency discharging the function of collection of evidence to dig out the truth.
' This cannot he free of imagination that a young lady of 17 years would take her own life to implicate the accused in a false case and, therefore, the artificial suspicion created by the police to exonerate the respondents from the charge and followed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the face of it is rediculous and full of perversity.
7. The consideration for grant of bail in murder cases mus, be based on the material made available to the Court and evidence collected by the Investigating Agency during the investigation through tentative examination of the same and not undertaking the exercise of full-fledged appraisal of evidence. Unless the Court on the basis of material in the hand of prosecution comes to a definite conclusion that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that an accused of offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life has committed such offence, the provisions of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Could not be invoked in his favour. The creation of artificial ground to bring the case within the ambit of said provision of law on the pretext of further inquiry is not legal.
8. The record transpired sufficient incriminating material connecting the respondents with the commission of offence. The witnesses named in the F.I.R. Lodged on the statement of deceased fully corroborated the version of the F.I.R. And, therefore, the case did not apparently requiring further inquiry into the guilt of respondents was not a fit one for grant of bail. Strict adherence to law is incumbent upon those who administer justice. Parallel appraisal of evidence for decision of criminal cases by police virtually is causing serious prejudice to the judicial system and, therefore, the judicial officers must apply their independent mind. A person has to be shown not prima facie connecting with offence to earn a right of enlargement on bail, but only a favourable opinion was hardly a ground to allow bail to the accused.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the to the respondents by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chakwal is hereby recalled. This petition is allowed accordingly.
Bail cancelled.