A case under section 302/324/34, P.P.C. Was registered vide F.I.R. No,37 of 1998, dated 22-1-1998 for an occurrence, which took place on 22-1-1998 within the area of Police Station, Kot Lakhpat, Lahore in which one Manzoor Hussain was murdered at about 2-15 p.m. The F.I.R. Was lodged on the same date at about 3-45 p.m. In which it was contended that at the Lalkara of one Zafar, his co-accused Arif armed with .222 rifle, while his co-accused Farooq and Ashfaq armed with Dandas attacked the deceased over a dispute regarding the "Committee Amount". During the occurrence Arif had fired from his .222 rifle at the deceased and the injuries proved fatal. Farooq gave a Danda blow on the head of Khadim Hussain P.W. Whereas Ashfaq gave a Danda blow on the right arm of the complainant. On the same day the complainant moved a written application before the S.H.O.
Concerned in which it was contended that out of a mistake name of Arif was given in the F.I.R.
Although his real brother Muhammad Ashfaq having a resembling face had in fact fired at the deceased with .44 rifle. Likewise it was stated in the said application that Karamat Ali alias Fauji i,e, the present petitioner had also participated in the occurrence and during the transaction his lip was injured. The aforesaid Karamat Ali had allegedly come on leave from Army. However, due to some misunderstanding the name of his brother Zafar was given in the F.I.R. To have raised Lalkara although in fact the present petitioner Karamat Ali alias Fauji had raised such Lalkara. In pursuance of the aforesaid application supplementary statement of the complainant and statements of the eye-witnesses were recorded and aforesaid correction was made.
2. Arif aforenamed applied for bail and his application was accepted vide a detailed order, dated 28-7-1998 recorded in Criminal Miscellaneous No,3615/B of 1998 and he was directed to be released on bail.
3. The petitioner has moved this petition for bail on the ground that his name was not originally given in the F.I.R. And that there could be no possibility of mistake in identity because parties knew each other and the occurrence took place during midday, that the petitioner was substituted for Zafar accused who had done nothing being empty-handed except that he had raised Lalkara.
Even according to substituted role of the petitioner he was allegedly not assigned any injury to the deceased and was falsely implicated only because he allegedly got his lip injured during the occurrence. However, medico-legal examination was admittedly not undertaken for the aforesaid injury. As such it is contended that substitution of the petitioner for Zafar was tainted with mala fide.
As such it was alleged that the case has become a case of further inquiry.
4. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail on the ground that though the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the F.I.R., but he was promptly named in a written application and through supplementary statement of the complainant and the eye-witnesses. There could be no possibility of wrong substitution because the complainant was the real son of the deceased whereas Khadim Hussain. P.W. Was his real brother. It was not expected of them that they would falsely implicate the petitioner if he was allegedly innocent.
5. We have considered the foregoing facts and find that the petitioner was not initially named in the F.I.R. He was substituted for Zafar accused, who was named in the F.I.R. And was assigned the role of Lalkara. The alleged injury on the lip of the petitioner could not be brought on record through medico-legal examination to lend support to the version that since he was injured during the occurrence, therefore, he had also participated in the unfortunate incident. Even otherwise nothing is attributed to him except the proverbial Lalkara according to his substituted role. As such finding it a case of further inquiry, we allow this petition and admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.