' A case under section 324/34, P.P.C. Was registered against the petitioner, his brother Ansar Iqbal and one unknown person. The petitioner along with his brother applied for pre-arrest bail which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot. Thereupon, the petitioner and his aforesaid brother instituted Criminal Miscellaneous No,2691/B of 1998 for pre-arrest bail. It came up for hearing before my learned brother Sharif Hussain Bokhari, J., who admitted the petitioner and his brother to interim pre-arrest bail but vide order, dated 4-6-1998 while deciding the petition confirmed bail application of Ansar Iqbal on the ground that he did not cause any injury to the victim and was a young boy and under 16 years of age and a student of 10th class. The petition to the extent of the present petitioner was dismissed on the ground that he was responsible for causing injury to victim Muhammad Latif with a fire-arm. In the post-arrest proceedings against the petitioner, the local police came to the conclusion that he was innocent and that the occurrence was manipulated as the complainant side wanted that a pre-emption suit filed by the .Petitioner's side be withdrawn. The investigation of the local police was confirmed by the D.S.P. Of the area vide his opinion recorded in the case diary on 10-6-1998. It was held by both the Investigating Officers that the occurrence was doubtful as nobody turned up to join the investigation from the complainant's side although 37 respectable persons of the locality had appeared in defiance of the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of findings of the Police regarding innocence of the petitioner, it has become a case of further inquiry; that the occurrence took place on 1-5-1998 at 7-45 p.m. Whereas the F.I.R. Was got registered on 5-5-1998 at 2-45 p.m., as such the possibility of fabrication and mutual consultation cannot be ruled out before setting up the case. Lastly, it is contended that even according to the medico-legal report, the injury has been termed as Ghayr-jaifah Mutalahimah which is punishable up to three years under section 337- F(iii), P.P.C. And the victim is also entitled to Daman. As such, it is prayed that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause and the petitioner is entitled to bail.
3. Learned State Counsel opposed the petition on the ground that the eyewitnesses had supported the prosecution case and that the police opinion is not relevant at this stage.
4. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the eye- witnesses are related inter se and also to the complainant and as such, there being no independent witness, much reliance cannot be placed upon them, secondly, the weapon of offence has not been recovered so as to link the petitioner that he had caused fire-arm injury.
5. I have taken 'into consideration the foregoing submissions and find that although the opinion of the Police is not binding on the Courts but, the attending circumstances have to be taken into consideration in each case. In this case, the complainant side did not join the investigation before the Police whereas in defiance 37 persons were examined who supported the defiance version that the petitioner was innocent and the occurrence was fabricated on account of some civil litigation between the parties. In such a situation, the opinion of the Police cannot be ignored because it comes into contact with the parties from the very start of the proceedings and is responsible for the collection of evidence from both the sides to come to a conclusion whether or not the occurrence is true or false. Lastly, the offence is determined as Ghayr-jaifah Mutalahimah by the Medical Expert which is punishable up to three years and Daman as pointed out above. Hence, finding it a case of further enquiry, the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,30,000 with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.