1. ' Petitioner Abdul Naveed Shakoor son of Abdul Shahoor seeks after arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.294, dated 10-12-2002 under sections 302, 148, 149, P.P.C. Registered at P.S. Lohari Gate, Lahore at the instance of Aziz Ahmad for murder of Nadir Khan alias Nadi.
2. ' The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with co-accused armed with fire-arms launched attack and caused injuries to deceased Nadir Khan with their respective weapons.
3. ' The petitioner was arrested on 5-6-2003 and was declined after arrest bail by the learned Addl.
4. Sessions Judge, Lahore vide order, dated 28-12-2003. Hence this petition.
5. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no overt act attributed to the petitioner and during the investigation he was declared innocent by the I.O. Vide Zimni, dated 19-6-2003. No weapon of offence was recovered from his possession and DSP also verified the investigation conducted by the first I.O. On 13-9-2003; that there is no motive against the present petitioner.
6. Further contents that against the complainant party there are more than hundred cases. Learned counsel has placed reliance on 2001 YLR 2593, Falak Sher v. State, 1993 SCM R 2288 Dr. Muhammad Aslam v. The State, 1991 SCM R 1630, Nek Muhammad v. State 1980 SCM R 784 Jaffar and others v.
7. State 1997 SCM R 251 Muhammad Aslam and another v. State through A.G. Punjab and another Crl.
8. Misc. No. 823-B/2004 Mushtaq v. State, Crl. Misc. No. 1541B/2004 Muhammad Mansha v. State Crl.
9. Misc. No. 1524-B/2004, Muhammad Ashraf v. State in support of his contentions.
10. ' The petition has been opposed by learned counsel for the State and for the complainant.
11. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record as well as case-law referred to.
12. The occurrence took place at 12-10 p.m. On 10-12-2002 and F.I.R. Was lodged at 1-45 p.m. On the same day wherein the petitioner is specifically nominated accused. His pre-arrest bail was dismissed on 20-1-2004. Thereafter, he absconded and proceedings under sections 87/88, Cr.P.C.
13. Were initiated against him. Thereafter, he appeared before the I.Q. On 5-6-2003 and was sent in judicial lock up on 20-6-2003. He was nominated accused with specific role in promptly recorded F.I.R. According to opinion of the I.O. He was although present at the spot but was empty-handed, but the opinion of the police is not binding on the Court. It was a day light occurrence and the eye- witnesses still support the prosecution story as narrated by the complainant in the F.I.R. The challan of the case has already been submitted and the trial has commenced. The case-law referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, therefore, I do not find any force in the petition, so the same is dismissed.