This order shall dispose of Crl. Misc. No. 4798-B/98 and Crl. Misc. No. 5385/BC/98 seeking cancellation of to the respondents in the same FIR.
2. A case FIR No. 204/97, dated 3.9.1997 under Sections 302/109/148/149/324, PPC was registered against 17 persons including the respondents. It was alleged therein that the complainant Mushtaq Ahmad was returning to his village on motorcycle alongwith his son Tanvir Ahmad deceased on 3.9.1997 at about 12.30 p.m. When they reached Meli Burji Bus Stop, the respondents Muhammad Akram, Iftikhar Ahmad, Muhammad Aslam armed with rifles, Imtiaz Ahmad armed with 12 bore gun, Zahid Maqbool armed with rifle find at the complainant and his deceased son Tanvir Ahmad. They fell down from the motorcycle and ran towards the sugarcane find. The fire shot hits Tanvir Ahmad deceased on chest, abdomen and neck who succumbed to the injuries. The accused and the complainant parties were inimical to each other.
3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge with powers of Special Court, Suppression of Terrorist Activities, granted bail before arrest to respondent Nos. 1 to 7 vide order dated 11.6.1998 and bail after arrest to respondents Nos. 8 to 11 vide order dated 16.7.1998 which were sought to be cancelled in Cr-Misc. No. 4798-BC/98. The other respondents Nos. 1 to 3 in Cr. Misc. No. 5385/BC/98 were granted bail after arrest vide order dated 25.9.1998.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that respondents Nos. 1 to 7 were accused of conspiracy under Section 109 PPC having been specifically mentioned by the PWs in their statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C, recorded by the police on the same day. It was further argued that the other respondents were named in the FIR with specific role of causing fatal injuries to the deceased Tanvir Ahmad. Out of 17 accused only respondent No. 5 Ghulam Haider and respondent No. 7 Karamat Ali had been declared by the police to be innocent. Three accused had been declared to be proclaimed offenders. There were reasonable grounds to believe that the respondents were guilty of the offence of murder.
5. The contentions were opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents. The learned counsel for the State did not support the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. We have heard both sides at length and have also perused the relevant record as brought by Muhammad. Ashraf, ASI. We find that the case was investigated by the DSP Shahid Faruq who recorded his Zimni No. 24, dated 15.10.1997 to the effect that all the respondents were innocent in his opinion. Subsequently, re-investigation of the case was conducted by no less a person than the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sheikhupura, under the orders of the Inspector General of Police, on the move of the complainant. He also came to the same conclusion and recorded his zimni dated 30.3.1998 to the effect that only accused Akram, Ansar and Shahid Maqbul POs were involved in the commission of the alleged offence and that the present respondents were innocent. The challan in this case has already been submitted before the learned trial Court. In view of varying opinions of the police officers, the case did call for further inquiry into the guilt of the respondents/accused.
The considerations for the cancellation of bail are different than those of the grant of bail.
Reference may be made to the case of Tariq Bashir The State (PLD 1995 SC 34). The learned Court below rightly exercised his discretion in releasing the respondents on bail to which no exception could be taken.
7. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any. Merit in the applications for cancellation of bail which are accordingly dismissed.