' Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,82 of 1999 dated 15-5-1999 under section 302/201, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Chauntra, District Rawalpindi.
2. The allegation against the accused/present petitioner is that he had committed the murder of deceased by firing at him.
3. The petitioner filed an application for bail after arrest which relief has been declined to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi vide order, dated 9-8-1999. Hence the instant petition.
4. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
5. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that occurrence took place on 19-3-1999 at 4-30 a.m. Whereas Rapt No,7 was lodged on 5-4-1999, that later on F.I.R., has been lodged on 15-5- 1999 on the basis of exhumation report, dated 10-5-1999, that as per contents of F.I.R., Muhammad Amir is said to have witnessed the occurrence and Muhammad Amin and Muhammad Razzaq are said to have reached the spot at the time of occurrence, that Muhammad Amir is son-in-law of the deceased whereas Muhammad Amin is Imam Masjid and Muhammad Razzaq is nephew of the deceased, that initially investigation was conducted by the Investigating Officer and none of the eyewitnesses supported the prosecution version contained in the F.1.R., that later on, complainant got the investigation changed and it was entrusted to Raja Basharat, D.S.P., New Town, that all the three witnesses appeared before him but did not support the prosecution version, that vide case diary, dated 22-5-1999, D.S.P., Raja Basharat declared the accused/petitioner innocent and recommended his discharge, that now the investigation is pending with Range Crimes Branch, Rawalpindi since 3-9-1999 and no further step has so far been taken by the said Investigating Agency, that all these facts make the case of the petitioner open for further enquiry, as such he may be admitted to bail.
6. Conversely the impugned order has been supported by the learned counsel for the complainant assisted by the learned counsel for the State. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that on account of intentional mala fide of the Investigating Agency the prosecution case has been spoiled. He further submits that he has been producing the witnesses before Range Crimes Branch but their statements are not being recorded intentionally as Investigating Agency is supporting the other side.
7. The petitioner stands charged under section 302/201, P. P. C . The allegation against him is that he committed the murder of the deceased with his fire-arm. Muhammad Amir, Muhammad Amin and Muhammad Razzaq are said to have seen the occurrence as narrated in F.I.R. All the three witnesses appeared before the Investigating Officer but did not support the prosecution version.
They also appeared before Raja Basharat, D.S.P. New Town, Rawalpindi but even then they did not support the prosecution story contained in the F.I.R. It is also evident from the facts stated above that vide case diary, dated 22-5-1999, D.S.P., has recommended the discharge of the accused/petitioner. There is no doubt that at present investigation is pending with the Range Crimes, Rawalpindi but no evidence connecting the accused with this offence has so far come on record. The net result of the investigation so far conducted is that prosecution has failed to connect the accused/petitioner with the commission of this offence and his discharge has been recommended by the D.S.P. All these facts make the case of petitioner open for further enquiry. As such petition is accepted and he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. However the Investigating Agency will be at liberty to move the Court for the cancellation of bail, if some evidence connecting the accused/petitioner with the commission of this offence is collected/brought on record.