LIAQAT ALI Versus STATE
ORDER
Liaqat Ali, petitioner, the accused of F.I.R. No. 112/95, dated 10‑5‑1995 under section 302/324/452/148/149, P.P.C. registered with P.S. Mangamandi has moved this petition for the grant of post‑arrest bail.
2. According to F.I.R. that the petitioner alongwith other co‑accused armed with deadly weapons entered the Dera of the complainant, Shabbir, co‑accused fired at the minor Ghulam Rasool injuring his leg and belly, while the petitioner fired on the complainant, which hit on his legs.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been declared innocent in three consecutive investigations and has been placed in column No. 2 of report under section 173, Cr.P.C. as was not present at the time of occurrence.
4. The learned counsel for State conversely controverted the arguments of learned counsel by contending that all the six accused persons nominated in the case have been attributed specific role; the complainant received as many as ten injuries and the motive behind the occurrence is strong and is mainly attributed to the petitioner.
5. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on case Asghar Masih and others v. The State 1995 PCr.LJ 544, Lahore and Muhammad Idrees v. The State 1995 PCr.LJ 1911 wherein the accused persons were also found innocent in all the consecutive investigations. It was held that though ipse dixit of the police is not binding upon the Court yet weight can be attached in the facts and circumstances relied upon case Muhammad Afzal v. Nazir Ahmad and others 1984 SCMR 429, wherein as plea of alibi was taken and the opinion of I.O. was given weight by the learned Judge of the High Court; while dismissing appeal; their Lordships observed that the relevancy to a question of bail of the opinion of the Investigating Agency would depend on the soundness of the material upon which it is based, and the prosecution has to bring to light the facts, which may furnish prima face a reasonable ground for believing that an accused though named in the F.I.R. is ,not guilty, further observed that the Court could take into consideration the statement of respectable persons, such as Imam of a local mosque and the Vice‑Chairman of the Union Council. On the strength, of the aforementioned dictum laid in the supra case, the learned counsel pressed that due weight be attached to the statements recorded by the Investigating Officers of political figures of the area.
In case Muhammad Yaqoob v. The State 1995 PCr. LJ 1882, this Court following the dictum laid down in the case reported as Muhammad Ashraf v. The State 1971 SCMR 183; Hakim Ali and 3 others v. The State 1979 SCMR 114, Saeed Ahmad v. The State 1981 SCMR 565 and Liaqat Ali v. The State PLD 1974 SC 172 observed that police challan is nothing but the opinion of the Investigating Agency and his opinion cannot be treated as legal evidence at the bail stage and is not binding upon the Court which can have its own opinion after examining the same and come to a different conclusion and that opinion of the I.O. holding an accused innocent cannot be made only basis for grant of bail; due weight, no doubt, is to be given to such opinion of the I.O. but the Court can examine tie material forming basis of the same and if it is based on inadmissible and irrelevant evidence it would not carry any weight at all; further the Court, in a bail matter has the jurisdiction to call the I. O. and question him about the merits of case as observed by their Lordships in case Saeed Ahmad Khan, D.S.P., Lahore v. The State 1992 SCMR 1369.
6. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel at length and perused the record and also put certain questions to the police officials, who have brought the record. Admittedly, the complainant had purchased some agricultural land from the petitioner and the petitioner had not given possession of part of land sold by him to the complainant, all the six accused persons including the petitioner, in case, allegedly have been attributed specific role, the deceased minor of 4 years received ten injuries; the complainant himself received ten injuries While the injured P.Ws. receive 4 to 5 injuries; none of the witnesses to the occurrence; as stated by the I.O. present in Court; has supported the plea of alibi adopted by the petitioner except the political figures of area.
The F.I.R. in case was lodged promptly; the petitioner has been assigned specific and overt act; the strong motive is attributed to him; a minor at the age of 4 years was brutally murdered; indiscriminate firing was made; the prosecution witnesses have fully supported the prosecution version. The petitioner has been found innocent on the statement of political figures only; there is nothing on record except the statements of political figure in favour of the petitioner; the I.O. when put question in the Court remained unable to satisfy the Court with regard to the innocence of the accused. By now it is well settled law that an accused is not to be released on bail by the Court, if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or ten years.
6. I am constrained to observe that trend of political pressure is increasing into change of investigation from hand to hand; spoiling the prosecution case and to strengthen the hands of influential culprits; unfortunately, the I.Os. who have the responsibility to investigate the case freely and without fear in the larger interest of State; have become tools in the hands of political figures of the area which is undesirable.
7. In view of the above discussion, I am not inclined to grant the request for grant of bail, the bail petition being devoided of merits is dismissed accordingly.
N.H.Q./L‑12/L Bail refused.