MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ Versus STATE

ORDER

1. JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑ Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No.224 of 1987 has been filed by Muhammad Mumtaz, Umerdraz, Sarfraz and Dilbaz petitioners, whereas Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No.225 of 1987 has been filed by Ahmad Sher and Shamsher petitioners. Both the petitions for leave are directed against the orders of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, refusing bail to both the sets of petitioners who alongwith others are involved in a case under section 302/307/148/149, P.P.C. read with section 109, P.P.C.

2. The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners was that all the six of them were found innocent by the police during the investigation and had been placed in column No.2 of the challan. We issued notice to the Advocate‑General and as a result State counsel has appeared today. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties at some length we are of the view that these petitions be converted into appeals. It is ordered accordingly.

3. Learned counsel for both the sets of appellants argued that a perusal of the impugned orders would show that the alleged statements of accused‑appellants .made before the police had been erroneously considered by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court for refusing bail to them. It was next submitted that the second ground advanced in the impugned orders for refusing bail to the appellants was that a number of persons had come forward and made an oath in support of the version put forward by the complainant side although none of them was an eye‑witness of the occurrence. It was further submitted that the learned Single Judge in the impugned orders proceeded to make detailed comments on the police diary and on his own arrived at the conclusion that the reasons advanced by the investigating agency for declaring the six appellants as innocent were not sound. According to the learned counsel the learned Single Judge substituted his own opinion over that of the police. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand argued that. incomplete challan had already been put up and that it may not be appropriate at this stage to release the appellants on bail.

4. In the light of the arguments advanced we agree with the learned counsel for the appellants that there are aforesaid three infirmities in the impugned orders of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in this case. Both the sets of the appellants in the course of the investigation had been found innocent by the police and their names have been placed in column No.2. In these circumstances bail should not have seen refused to them on the grounds recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned' orders.

5. We, therefore, allow the appeals and admit all the six appellants to bail subject to their furnishing security in the sum of Rs.25,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Khushab.

6. M.I. /M‑464/S Bail granted.