' Allah Bachaya petitioner herein alongwith four others including Ghulam Shah was charged for the offence of murder of Muhammad Alam.
' According to first information report lodged by Sana Ullah a real brother of the deceased shortly after the incident the five accused in the case armed with hatchet etc. Had ambushed the deceased. The petitioner was ascribed the main role in the commission of the offence that he had dealt injuries to the deceased in the head with the hatchet in his hand. During successive investigations, Shah Alam alone was found guilty and the remaining accused in the case including the petitioner were held innocent with the result that they were mentioned as suspects in Column No, 2 of challan. Sanaullah filed a private complaint before learned Sessions Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan. Preliminary inquiry was entrusted to a Magistrate, First Class, Rojhan who also reported that Shah Ghulam was the only assailant of the deceased. Learned Sessions Judge did not accept the report of the Magistrate and ordered issuance of process to the petitioner also whereat the latter applied before this Court for grant of bail before arrest (Criminal Miscellaneous No, 233/B/ /7) under section 498, Criminal Procedure Code. He was on 21st of March 1977 admitted to bail ad interim by my learned brother Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J. Sana Ullah complainant in the case has come up with application for cancellation of bail of the petitioner (Criminal Miscellaneous No, 588/B/77). Both applications are disposed of together through this single order.
2. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that opinion of the Investigating Officer is not merely relevant but is an important factor for consideration of the question of grant or otherwise of bail to the accused. I am afraid, in the changed circumstances the argument is no longer availabl to the petitioner. Opinion of Investigating Officer which does not constitute legal evidence is not binding on the Court. The opinion of the Investigatin Officer loses its significance if the Court comes to a different conclusion. As said above, learned Sessions Judge had on consideration of eviden examined during preliminary inquiry arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner be also tried alongwith Shah Ghulam on the charge of murder. It was next argued that Shah Ghulam who according to the Investigatin: Officer was the only assailant of the deceased was admitted to bail by my Lord the former Chief Justice (Criminal Miscellaneous No, 1361/B/76) wit the observation that case against him was covered by the provisions is subsection (2) of section 497, Cr. P. C. Viz., there were reasonable grounds for a further inquiry into the offence against the accused. Evidently, as compared to Shah Ghulam, Allah Bachaya petitioner stands on a firmer ground for gran of bail. I am not oblivious of the fact that different considerations apply to the question of grant or otherwise of pre-arrest bail. However, it will not be proper to reject the application after about 18 months of the orde admitting the petitioner to bail ad interim particularly, more for the reason that Shah Ghulam was also allowed bail after three months of his arrest.
3. It has been alleged by the complainant (petitioner in Criminal Miscellaneous 558/B of 1977) that after having secured his release on bail, the petitioner had tried to suborn the witnesses. This contention does not have much pursuasion in it. It is a matter of common experience that the complainant who does not reconcile himself with the order for release of the accused on bail generally levels such vague allegations against the accused. Interim . Application for cancellation of bail (Criminal Miscellaneous 558/B/77) rejected. Bail comfirmed.