' The petitioner along with others stands charged under section 302/148/149, P.P.C. Vide No,221/96 dated 26-10-1996 registered at P.S. Barana, Tehsil and District Jhang.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that on 25-10-1996 at about evening time, the complainant Ghulam Hur went to the residence of his brother Ghulam Ali Khan who was residing in the land of Hamidullah which was being cultivated by Ghulam All Khan as tenant prior to his arrival, Mst.
Nooran widow of Khan and Hameedullah were present there. The complainant, Hameedullah and Musawar Abbas son of Ghullah Ali Khan slept at the behak with the cattle whereas Ghulam Ali Khan, Mst. Satbharai daughter of Ghulam Ali Khan and Mst. Nooran went to bed in the dhari. At about half past 12-00 in the midnight, the complainant and Hameedullah woke up on the sount of throttling. It was a moonlit night. They saw Mansha Khan armed with a pistol, Abdur Rehman armed with a pistol and Mata Khan armed with a 7 mm rifle throttling the neck of Masawwar Abbas with a rope. The accused Iqbal had caught Musawwar Abbas through his arms and Muhammad Amin was holding his legs. Hameedullah raised hue and cry, upon which the accused ran towards dhari leaving Musawar Abbas and on reaching the dhari, Mansha Khan fired twice at Ghulam Ali Khan with a pistol which hit on his head. Abdur Rehman fired upon Mst. Satbharai hitting her on right side of neck. Thereafter the accused ran away while firing. The motive behind this occurrence is stated to be that Ghulam Ali Khan had agreed to give the hand of Mst. Satbharai to Mansha Khan to which he later on resiled. It is further alleged that Mst. Nooran was also in league with the accused and she also fled away along with her co-accused (sic).
3. The petitioner applied for bail which request has been declined by the learned Sessions Judge Jhang vide order dated 11-3-1998. Hence the instant petition.
4. Bail has been sought on the ground that the petitioner has been declared innocent by the Investigating Officer as well as by the D.S.P who has verified the investigation conducted by the initial Investigating Officer, that the petitioner has got no relationship with his co-accused and is not even a resident-of the area, that he had been implicated in this case falsely as he had got some dispute over some land with the complainant, that though he is alleged to be armed with a 7 mm rifle, yet had not used the same in the commission of this offence, that both the eye-witnesses are chance witnesses, as such their evidence cannot be relied upon without any independent corroboration which is lacking in the instant case, that the petitioner was not present on the spot and allegation of mere throttling has been levelled against the petitioner, that through opinion of the Investigating Officer is not binding, yet it makes the case of the petitioner open for further inquiry entitling him to the concession of bail and relied upon Yaqoob Khan v. Tahir Mehmood and 6 others (1996 PCr.LJ 1647) and Muhammad Rafique v. The State 1996 P.Cr.LJ 1745.
5. Conversely, the petition has been opposed by learned counsel for the complainant assisted by learned counsel for the State. It is asserted by learned counsel for the complainant that death of deceased is alleged to have been caused as a result of strangulation as well as by causing fire arm injuries, that this contention of the complainant stands corroborated from the post-mortem examination report, that prosecution version stands corroborated from the statements of Hameedullah, upon whose land the alleged occurrence took place, as well as of complainant, that since both the eye-witnesses have supported the prosecution version, so the opinion of the Investigating Officer is of no value.
' He further submits that W.P. No,10209-98 was filed by Ghulam Hur against police, in which report of D.S.P. Was called on 28-5-1998 and he was directed to submit the same within one week but the said report has not so far been submitted. He further contended that he is the same D.S.P. Who has declared the petitioner innocent. He further submits that opinion of the Investigating Officer is not binding upon the Court which can have its own opinion after examining the material on record and come to a different conclusion and relied upon Muhammad Boota v. The State and 4 others (PLD 1995 Lahore 335), Liaqat Ali v. The State (PLD 1994 Supreme Court 172) and Nazar Muhammad v.
State and others (1996 M LD 1330). He further submits that investigation is complete and challan has been submitted in Court and case is now fixed for 7-9-1998 for recording prosecution evidence. He thus submits that in the instant cause as many as three murders have been committed and the petitioner having been specifically named and assigned a specific role, is not entitled to the relief sought by him.
6. In the instant case, bail has primarily been sought on the ground that the petitioner has been declared innocent by the Investigating Officer, whose investigation has further been verified by the D.S.P. Concerned. A perusal of the F.I.R. Shows that Hameedullah and Ghulam Hur have been shown to be eyewitnesses of this case. Out of them, Hameedullah P.W. Is the person, upon whose land occurrence has taken place. Both Hamedullah and Ghulam Hur have supported the prosecution version which further stands corroborated from the post-mortem examination report. It is evident from the post-mortem examination reports that death of deceased Musawwar Abbas has been caused by strangulation and of other by fire arm injuries. This being the factual position, the opinion of the Investigating Officer hardly carries any weight. The authorities referred by learned counsel for the petitioner do not come to the rescue as the opinion of the Investigating Officer is not based on evidence brought on record in the form of statements of Hameedullah and Ghulam Hur who have been shown as eye-witnesses in the instant case. On the other hand, their statements stand further corroborated from the medical evidence which has been collected and is available on police file. It is also pertinent to point out that challan has been submitted and case is now fixed for recording prosecution evidence.
7. In the light of facts stated above, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought by him at this stage. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.