Aftab Ali Khan, petitioner alongwith three others namely Iftikhar Mohsin, Hyder Talib and Zaigham Sheikh stand involved in Crime Report No. 29 dated 22-2-2001 under sections 302/324/109/34, P.P.C.
And section 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 registered with Police Station Factory Area, Sargodha at the behest of Muhammad Shakil son of Sh. Muhammad Islam. Name of Zaigham Sheikh is not mentioned in the F.I.R. The prosecution story as revealed through contents of the F.I.R. Can be summarised like this: -- Muhammad Shakil complainant on 22-2-2001 at 8-30 p.m. Alongwith his father Muhammad Islam, Muhammad Yousaf his brother, Hyder Rehman's, maternal nephew and Irick, a foreign friend was available in New Age Restaurant near Calcutta Railway Crossing. They were busy in conversation with each other while sitting at the counter. All of a sudden two persons whose names later on discovered as Iftikhar Mohsin and Aftab Ali Khan (petitioner) entered therein. Their other compatriot namely Hyder Ali resident of Bahawalpur stood outside by the side of a motorcycle. He could be identified under the tube light. Iftikhar Mohsin and Aftab Khan ordered for milk shake. Hyder Rehman's, salesman of the complainant told him that two days earlier, they had visited the hotel and placed order for soup. They left the hotel without clearing of their bills. They were busy in talking with each other when two persons armed with pistols aimed their pistols at Irick and pronounced openly that they would kill him. Complainant made an advance whereupon petitioner fired two shots striking his left thigh. In the meanwhile, Muhammad Islam, father of the complainant came forward and told them that Irick was their guest, so he may not be killed. Iftikhar Mohsin Fired two shots with pistol which -truck right flank and neck. Thereafter Muhammad Yousaf and Hyder Rehman's intervened. They started firing at them. Muhammad Yousaf sustained two fire-arm injuries on his abdominal region and right shin. Hyder Rehman's suffered an injury on the heel of his foot. During this process of reckless firing shot made by Aftab Ahmad Khan petitioner hit foot of Iftikhar Mohsin. The accused alongwith Hyder Talib made good their escape by means of a motorcycle CD-70. Muhammad Islam succumbed to his injuries on his way to the hospital.
Inspector/S.H.O., Police Station, Factory Area on receipt of information arrived at Civil Hospital, Sargodha where Muhammad Shakil dictated his statement to 'set the criminal law into motion against the alleged offenders.
2. Succeeding registration of case Inspector/S.H.O. Forthwith assumed the role of an investigator and performed his requisite duties. The police after completion of investigation are stated to have submitted challan before the Court concerned on 2-1-2002. Section 7 of Anti Terrorism Act, 1997 stood deleted from list of offences.
3. On being arrested the petitioner by filing his post-arrest bail application approached the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sargodha who entrusted the same to a learned Additional Sessions Judge for its disposal in accordance with law. The said learned Additional Sessions Judge by virtue of his order dated 13-2-2002 declined him the desired relief on the basis of multifarious reasons contained in the order itself. Now he has moved the instant petition seeking same relief from this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argues that A. S. P., Shahpur came to the conclusion that petitioner was not present at the spot at the relevant time of occurrence, that he was liable only by dint of application of section 109, P.P.C., that case was got registered in absolutely false premises after distorting the real facts; that all that has been alleged against the petitioner in the F.I.R. Is a patent falsehood. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on 1994 PCr.LJ 361, 1994 PCr.LJ 2390 and PLJ 1999 Crl. Cases Lahore 200.
5. Conversely learned counsel for the State too strongly argues that the petitioner and his co- accused are fully involved in the occurrence in which one person lost his life and three others sustained fire-arm injuries. He adds that not only the complainant but also other witnesses have supported the prosecution version and their statements could not be controverted by the accused during course of investigation, and that opinion of police is no evidence in the case more especially in the presence of direct evidence of injured witnesses.
6. I have courteously heard and soberly considered respective arguments of both the sides. It is a case in which F.I.R. Stooa registered with due haste within reasonable time. Chances of fabricating a false tale or occurrence are ruled out altogether. Shakiil Ahmad complainant, Hyder Rehman's and Muhammad Yousaf have suffered fire-arm injuries. Their presence at the spot cannot be doubted by any stretch of imagination. The accused created an atmosphere of fear, fright and terror. A panicky situation was prevailing all around. The complainant and team of his witnesses wholeheartedly supported the prosecution version during course of investigation. Their statements could not be rebutted effectively by the accused. Under what circumstances petitioner was indicted for the crime of abetment are not known. There is the direct evidence of eye-witnesses and no importance can be attached to the opinion of the police at this stage lest it may prejudice cause of either side. Authorities referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner are not identical with the facts of present case. Petitioner is charged with an offence which is, punishable with death or imprisonment for life. I have no other option but to dismiss this bail petition being devoid of force. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.