' Javed petitioner seeks his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,332, dated 26-8-2002 under Ictions 302/34, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Raiwind Saddar, asur at the instance of Abdul Ghafoor, father of Muhammad Ali deceased of this case.
2. Concisely facts bearing upon the charge are that complainant alongwith his family members was fast asleep in his Ha'veli, which is not covered by boundary wall. Four unknown persons came to his Haveli and asked Muhammad Ali son of the complainant, to deliver them price of buffalo sold by him. On this, Muhammad Ali remarked that he had identified them. Thereafter, unknown accused gripped Muhammad Ali and one of them made a shot at back of his chest, who fell down and met his instantaneous death. Mst. Saisat Bibi another wife of the complainant is from N.-W.F.P.
She developed illicit liaison with the petitioner, who ultimately carried her off. Due to untiring efforts of people around, her custody was delivered back to the complainant, who entertained a suspicion that either Javed and Mst. Siasat Bibi have themselves killed Muhammad Ali or got him killed through someone.
3. Succeeding registration of case, investigation into the crime forthwith commenced. Initial investigation was conducted by Zikria Yousaf, Inspector/S.H.O., who found him not linked with the crime. The S.D.P.O. Also investigated upon facts and circumstances of this case. He too came to the conclusion that petitioner was not involved in the occurrence. Thereafter, investigation was taken over by Crimes Branch, Kasur and S.P., Crimes Branch, Kasur, gave similar findings. Yet another investigation was made by Range Crime, Sheikhupura Yar Muhammad and Muhammad Anwar, Inspectors of Crimes Branch, Sheikhupura, then conducted investigation. They found him involved in the occurrence because petitioner had illicit liaison with Mst. Siasat Bibi. During all the four investigations, both the sides have been associating themselves therewith.
4. In pursuance of the order of the Crimes Branch, Sheikhupura, petitioner could be arrested by S.H.O. Raiwind Saddar, District Kasur, on 20-5-2003 and was dispatched to the judicial lock-up when no longer required for further investigation and no further offence was to be discovered from him. During all these investigations, nothing could be recovered either from his possession or at his instance. Driven into this situation, he preferred his application before learned Sessions Judge, Kasur, who made over the same to a learned Additional Sessions Judge for its disposal in accordance with law. The said learned Judge after taking everything into his full consideration declined him the desired relief through his order, dated 16-6-2003 on the basis of various reasons contained in the order itself. Hence this petition.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has forcefully argued that in three successive investigations, petitioner was found innocent, but during 4th one, he was declared guilty and for that reason case of the petitioner calls for a. Further probe. Adds that Abdul Ghafoor- complainant on the same day made a supplementary statement, in which he ascribed the fatal role to Iftikhar and implicated Mst. Yasmin, Saleem, Ashiq and Liaqat. According to him, allegation of holding the deceased by four individuals does not ring true.
6. Conversely, learned counsel for the State repelling contentions raised by learned counsel for the complainant submits that name of the petitioner is mentioned in the F.I.R., motive is also attributed to him and allegation of catching hold of the deceased is there. Adds that Muhammad Umer and Mst. Sumaira, brother and sister of Muhammad Ali deceased, had also supported allegation brought against him.
7. I have attentively heard and considered contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties.
Both learned State Counsel and police official present in Court, did not deny that the petitioner was found innocent during first three investigations and was declared guilty in the 4th one. Opinion expressed by the police regarding guilt or innocence of the accused is no evidence in the case, yet it makes prosecution case needing further inquiry about its veracity. Whenever there are conflicting opinions furnished by the police, benefit is allowed to the accused. Motive is just a piece of evidence and not an element of crime. Muhammad Umer and Mst. Sumaira were also sleeping in the Haveli where occurrence took place. They could very well state all those facts and circumstances observed personally by them before Abdul Ghafoor complainant to narrate the same in the first information report. F.I.R. Has been recorded after about four hours of the occurrence. There was sufficient time with Muhammad Umer and Mst. Sumaira to narrate facts within their knowledge to Abdul Ghafoor complainant, who is stated to be available at the time of occurrence. Omission of such material fact also casts serious doubt upon veracity of the prosecution story. Taken from all angles, I am of the firm view that allegations levelled against the petitioner call for a further probe.
8. Accordingly, by accepting this petition, I direct that petitioner be released from custody, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
9. Trial Court is, however, directed to conclude trial within three months on receipt of this order. 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.