' Sami Ullah Khan petitioner aged about 17 years and Nadeem Ullah Khan petitioner aged about 18 years were arrested on the 17th of March, 1998, in pursuance of a case registered against them vide First Information Report No,44, dated the 2nd of February, 1998, recorded under section 302/34, P.P.C. At Police Station City, Mianwali, regarding an occurrence which allegedly took place on the 2nd of February, 1998 at 1-30. p.m. In street Inam Ullah Khan, M.N.A. In the area of Mohallah Sher Khan which is about one and quarter kilometre from Police Station City, Mianwali, where the first information report was lodged same day at 2-00. p.m. By Haji Muhammad Iqbal, brother-in-law of Ubaid-ur-Rehman deceased aged about 21 years who died at the spot on account of the injuries that he received at the hands of the petitioners who were both allegedly armed with .12 bore pump action guns. Sami Ullah Khan petitioner fired at the deceased and hit him on the abdomen while Nadeem Ullah Khan petitioner fired at the deceased and hit him on the right side of the head near the ear resulting in his instantaneous death. The occurrence was witnessed by complainant Haji Muhammad Iqbal, Taj Muhammad Khan and Saifullah Khan.
2. Bail is prayed for, inter alia, on the grounds that the petitioners have been found to be "innocent" and placed in column No,2 of the challan by the Deputy Superintendent of Police Muhammad Saleem Khan of the Crimes Branch of Lahore who has also expressed the opinion that the complainant as well as the eye-witnesses were not present at the spot; that the assailants were Nasarullah Khan, Nusrutullah Khan and Sakhaullah Khan who have now been challaned; that a discharge report was prepared which was, however, turned down by a learned Magistrate and that the case against the petitioners is a matter of further enquiry within the meaning of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Which entitles the petitioners to the grant of bail.
3. Learned counsel for the State and complainant Haji Muhammad Iqbal argued that reasonable grounds within the meaning of subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. To believe that the petitioners are guilty of an offence punishable with death exist which disentitles the petitioners from the grant of bail; that both guns were recovered from the petitioners for which separate cases have been registered under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance of 1965 as both the said arms were unlicensed; that the Station House Officer of Police Station concerned found both the petitioners "guilty" and challaned them on the 4th of April, 1998 and, therefore, their bail should be dismissed.
4. The first information report was lodged within half an hour wherein the petitioners are named alongwith their weapons and specific roles have been assigned to them. Besides the complainant Taj Muhammad Khan and Saifullah Khan have been mentioned as having seen the occurrence.
Prima facie, the promptly lodged first information report rules out the possibility of false implication.
However, I am refraining from making any further observation on this aspect of the matter and leaving it for the trial Court to draw its own independent conclusions after recording evidence. The post-mortem examination of Ubaid-ur-Rehman deceased which was conducted on the same day at 4-00. p.m. Shows injuries on the abdomen and the head which again, prima facie, is in line with the ocular account and again I am refraining from making any further observation lest it prejudices the case of the prosecution or the defense and in accordance with the established principles of criminal jurisprudence and leaving this matter also in the judicial discretion of the trial Court where the trial has yet to be conducted.
5. In our country investigation is conducted by the Police or otheragencies controlled by the State.
There are no private detective agencies. Part V of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1898 in Chapter XIV deals with information to the Police and powers to investigate.
' Section 154, Cr.P.C. Lays down that every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence if given orally to an officer-in-charge of a police station shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction. Section 156, Cr.P.C. Provides that any officer-in-charge of a police station, may without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case. Thus, the basic duty to investigate into the commission of any cognizable offence is that of the Station House Officer of the Police Station within whose jurisdiction and local area the offence has allegedly beer. Committed.
In the instant case the Station House Officer concerned complied with his legal obligations and duties, registered the case and investigated into it, found the petitioners, 'prima facie, responsible for the offence that they had allegedly committed and submitted his final report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Commonly known as a challan on the 4th of April, 1998.
' Section 173, Cr.P.C. Requires that every investigation shall be completed without unnecessary delay and as soon as it is completed, the officerin-charge of the police station shall through Public Prosecutor forward it to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence. It is further provided that where the investigation is not completed within a period of 14 days from the date of recording of the first information report under section 154, Cr.P.C., the officer-in-charge shall, within 3 days of the expiration of such period forward to the Magistrate an interim report and the Court shall commence the trial on the basis of such interim report, unless for reasons to be recorded, the Court decides that the trial should not so commence. In the instant case when the challan was submitted it seems that an application was moved by the accused persons to the Inspector- General of Police praying that there should be a reinvestigation and the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab obliged by ordering a reinvestigation and entrusting the same to Mr. Muhammad Saleem, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crimes Branch, Lahore who not only disbelieved the prosecution case but totally demolished it. There is no legal justification whatsoever for ordering reinvestigation once a matter has been investigated and the final report has been submitted to the competent Court for commencement of the trial. The only next step provided by law is the commencement of the trial itself. This Court looks askance at the number of investigations and reinvestigations ad infinitum carried out by the Police and other agencies due to extraneous circumstances resulting in scandalous delay of trials and defeating the process of justice.
6. In the present case Deputy Superintendent of Police Muhammad Saleem Khan has come to the conclusion on the basis of what he describes as his "secret information" that the petitioners were not present at the spot at the relevant time and were away to Lahore and hang and that in fact 3 other persons, namely, Nasarullah Khan, Sakhaullah Khan and Nusrutullah Khan killed Ubaid- urRehman which is nobody's case and has submitted a supplementary challan C totally falsifying the entire prosecution case which is completely unwarranted and uncalled for. It is for this reason that it has been repeatedly held that Courts are not bound by the ipsi dixit of the Police because Courts cannot allow themselves to become play things in the hands of the police and other Investigating Agencies. The grant or refusal of bail is a judicial discretion to be D exercised judiciously by examining the entire case and not just the opinion of a Police Officer. In the present case, seen in its entirety, reasonable grounds within the meaning of subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. To believe that the petitioners are guilty of an offence punishable with death, prima facie, seem to exist which disentitles the petitioners from the grant of bail.
7. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.