SAEED AHMAD vs The STATE

ORDER

1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.-The petitioner Saeed Ahmad and four others are facing trial in a case under sections 302, 307, 326, 149 end 148, P. P. C. Which was registered under F. I. R. Dated 2-11-1979 at the Police Station, Dayya, District Sialkot. The petitioner was released on bail by the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot dated 10-1-1980 on the ground that in spite of the fact that two responsible Police officers had conducted investigation of the case separately, yet he was considered as innocent and his name was therefore placed in Column 2 of the Police Challan, and the case against him called for further enquiry.

2. The petitioner remained throughout on bail till 10-2-1981 when a learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court, in exercise of suo motu powers, cancelled petitioner's bail on the ground that three witnesses in their statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had implicated him in the crime, and "on the general opinion of the Investigating Officer it cannot be said at this stage that the respondent (petitioner herein) did not take part in the occurrence".

3. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal from the order of the High Court, And Mr. Nemat Khan, learned counsel appearing for him submits that by now four different Agencies have conducted the investigation of the case, and they all have unanimously found the petitioner innocent, and his name yet remains in Column 2 of the Police Challan, and the order of the High Court canceling petitioner's bail after a period of more than one year was not justified, particularly when the petitioner had, in no way, abused the release on bail.

4. Mr. Muhammad Abdullah Bajwa, learned counsel appearing for the State confirms the correctness of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case has been investigated by four different Agencies, and the petitioner's name is yet borne on Column 2 of the Police Challan, and that the petitioner had not abused the liberty of bail granted to him. Learned counsel however supports the order of the High Court on the ground that the prosecution case is fortified by three persons in their statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure who claim to have witnessed the crime committed by the petitioner.

5. Almost similar situation as in the present case arose in Rehmat Ullah v. The State (1970 SCMR 299). Rehmatullah accused in that case was released on bail by the Sessions Judge, Sargodha, but the High Court cancelled the bail on the ground that "although three successive Investigating Officers had found Rehmatullah to be innocent, yet as their opinion is no legal evidence, and the charge against Rehmatullah is one of murder, bail cannot be allowed to him except in exceptional and special circumstances." On appeal, this Court maintained the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Sargodha on the ground that "the opinions of the Investigating Officers certainly do not constitute legal evidence, but being adverse to the prosecution, they put one on an enquiry as to the veracity of the prosecution case".

6. Again in Karam Din v. Muhammad Ashraf and 2 others (1975 SCMR 230), the accused who were facing trial under sections 302, 307/149 and 148, P. P. C. We r released on bail by the Additional Sessions Judge for the reason that for Investigating Agencies were of the opinion that they were innocent, and the names were put in Column 2 of the report under section 173 of the Cod of Criminal Procedure. The High Court rejected the application for cancellation of bail, and this Court also refused to interfere, additionally for the reason that no fresh ground had emerged for the cancellation of the bail.

7. Since in the present case the order of the learned Additional Session Judge releasing the petitioner on bail has support of precedents from good authority and during the course of long period of more than one year there has been no complaint that the petitioner has in any manner abused the concession of bail, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the High Court was hardly justified. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we convert this petition into an appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court, and direct that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing two sureties in the sum of Rs. 50,000, each, and on executing personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Commissioner, Narowal.