' A case under section 302/34, P.P.C., was registered against the petitioners and one Nawaz alias Kala vide F.I.R. No,106, dated 17-3-1996 at Police Station Saddar Chiniot, District Jhang for the murder of one Ahmad Yar son of Mahmood. The report about the occurrence was lodged by the father of the deceased namely Mahmood.
2. It is contended that the petitioners have been found innocent and placed in Column No,2 of the challan and as such, are entitled to bail. Secondly, it is submitted that the petitioner Ahmad Ali was shown as empty handed and has been attributed proverbial Lalkara. He is stated to be an old man with the age of 80 years. It is contended that no weapon of offence was recovered from any of the accused namely Ijaz and Riaz as alleged in the F.I.R. The recovery of carbine was, however, effected from Nawaz alias Kala co-accused (not a petitioner). Likewise, it is submitted that the complainant also filed a private complaint in which he challenged the innocence of the petitioners. Rather, it was stated in the complaint that the fire attributed to Nawaz alias Kala with carbine did not hit the deceased. However, with mala fide intention, the present petitioners namely Ijaz and Riaz have been implicated also in the complaint by showing that they had killed the deceased by their firing.
It was, therefore, submitted that it has become a case of further enquiry. Reliance was placed on 1999 M LD 939 Muhammad Arif Hussain v. State.
3. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application on the ground that all the petitioners have been assigned specific role in the F.I.R., and the story given therein has been supported by the eyewitnesses. Hence, the ipse dixit of the police declaring the petitioners innocent is not binding on the Court which should go by the statements of the witnesses who had actually seen the occurrence. It was, however, admitted that Ahmad Ali one of the petitioner was empty handed and had been attributed lalkara. It was also admitted that he was an old man with the age of 80 years.
4. I have considered the foregoing submissions and gone through the police file. It will be pre- mature to enter into the merits of the case at this stage. It is enough to say that the trial has started and the next date of hearing in the case is fixed by the Trial Court as 12-3-1999 for recording the evidence of the prosecution. The mere fact that the petitioners have been found innocent during the police investigation would not be relevant at this stage particularly when the eyewitnesses and the complainant side have reiterated in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C., recorded in the challan case and also in the complaint case that the deceased had died due to the firing made by Ijaz and Riaz petitioners. The mere fact that the recovery of the weapons of offence was not effected from them would not adversely effect the evidentiary value of the statements of the eye- witnesses which will be evaluated and appreciated in due course after their statements have been recorded at the trial. The fires attributed to the petitioners Ijaz and Riaz are proved from the injuries found on the person of the deceased. As such, both of them namely Ijaz and Riaz would have no case for bail at this stage. The petition to their extent is dismissed.
5. However, the case of Ahmad Ali is distinguishable as he is an old person of 80 years and has been attributed proverbial Lalkara. As such, his vicarious liability is yet to be established during the trial. The bail application to his extent is, therefore, accepted and he is allowed bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.