BASHIR AHMAD and another vs THE STATE

ORDER

' HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.--- Through this application, the petitioners are seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,177 of 2006 dated 8-7-2006, under section 302/34, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Daira Din Pannah, Tehsil Kot Addu, District Muzaffargarh.

2. The petitioners have approached this Court after the dismissal of their application for post-arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kot Addu, vide order, dated 20-10-2006.

3. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the F.I.R. Which was lodged at the instance of Abdul Hameed complainant are that on the night of 3-7-2006 at about 1-30 a.m. Bashir Ahmad petitioner armed with Toka, Sher Muhammad armed with hatchet, Muhammad Shafi and Atta Muhammad armed with pistols, barged into the house of Muhammad Aslam (deceased), upon which, the complainant, Muhammad Aslam (deceased), Muhammad Ashiq and Muhammad Asif sons of Muhammad Aslam (deceased) woke up. Thereafter, Bashir Ahmad petitioner inflicted a couple of blows with "Toka" on the backside of the neck and right shoulder of Muhammad Aslam (deceased) respectively. Sher Muhammad petitioner allegedly inflicted two hatchet blows on the left shoulder and chest of Muhammad Aslam (deceased) respectively.

4. In support of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that there is serious conflict between the ocular version and the medical evidence; that during the investigation prosecution version had been found false and the report for the discharge of the accused was submitted by the police, but the learned Illaqa Magistrate did not accept the same and that the complainant has filed a private complaint after making certain improvements in the prosecution version. He adds that Bashir Ahmad petitioner had got no motive to murder the deceased and it was the prosecution who had got the motive to falsely implicate the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this bail application tooth and nail.

6. It has been straightway noticed that the F.I.R. Of this case was lodged promptly. The petitioners are duly named in the F.I.R. With the specific role of causing repeated fatal blows to the deceased with formidable weapons. Though, there is some conflict between medical evidence and the ocular evidence, inasmuch as, the injury received on the head of the deceased, does not find any mention in the F.I.R., yet the bail cannot be granted simply on such inconsistency. The possibility of omission to note the said injury by the eye-witnesses in the night time occurrence, cannot be ruled out. Be that as it may, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners relate to the deeper appreciation of evidence which is not permissible at this stage. As far as the opinion of the police is concerned, that is neither admissible in evidence nor binding upon the Courts. The prosecution version is, prima facie, supported by the eye-witnesses, out of whom two witnesses, namely Muhammad Ashiq and Muhammad Asif being the inmates of the house in which the occurrence took place prima facie appear to be natural witnesses. The opinion of the police, prima facie is not found to be based upon sound material. Being dissatisfied by the conduct of the investigating agency the complainant has already filed a complaint against the accused/petitioners.

Reasonable grounds are available on the record to believe that the petitioners have committed an offence which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Without delving deep into merits of the case, lest it might prejudice the case of either of the parties, it is concluded that the petitioners are not found to be entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail. Resultantly, the petition in hand is dismissed.