UMAR HAYAT Versus STATE

ORDER

The Petitioner, Umar Hayat, who is involved in a case under section 302/148/149 P. P. C. arising out of F. I. R. No. 147, dated 29th September, 1983 of police Station Baragarh, District Sheikhupura has sought to be released on bail.

2. The allegations against the petitioner are that on 29th September, 1983 at about 9 a. m., the petitioner and his four co-accused waylaid Muhammad Siddiq deceased and Salabat the complainant. The petitioner is alleged to have dealt a `dang' blow on the head of Muhammad Siddiq deceased and is further alleged to have dealt a dang' blow 0.n the shoulder of Salabat complainant. Muhammad Siddiq deceased who was caused injuries by other co-accused of the petitioner as well succumbed to his injuries subsequently on the same day in Nankana Sahib Civil Hospital.

3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that as a result of police investigation, he and his father Allah Ditta who is also a co-accused in this case were found to be innocent. The investigation was conducted by two Deputy Superintendents of Police besides the S.H.O. Police Station, Baragarh.

4. The challan, after completion of the investigation, has since been submitted and in the said challan the names of the petitioner and his father Allah Ditta have been entered in column No. 2 of the challan. The father of the petitioner has already been admitted to bail by the learned Sessions Court and an application for cancellation of his bail has been dismissed by this Court.

5. It has, however, been argued on behalf of the complainant the as a result of subsequent investigation conducted by the Superintendent of Police Sheikhupura himself the petitioner and his father have also heel found to be guilty and it has been directed that their names be entered in column No. 3 instead of column No. 2. The records of investigation liana beer perused. The contents of the said records do not bear out the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant. The Police Officer who has brought the records has intimated that the Superintendent of Police has not yet conducted any investigation on the spot and has not so far passed any orders as alleged by the learned counsel for the complainant. It is thus evident that as a result of the investigation so far conducted, the petitioner and his father have been declared to be innocent. Their names have been entered in column No. 2 of the challan. Needless to say that finding arrived at by the Investigating Officer is not binding on the trial Court buts such finding can be looked into while dealing with the plea for bail. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the opinion arrived at by the S. H. O. Police Station Baragarh and the two Deputy Superintendents of Police who conducted the investigation is dishonest in any manner. In Muhammad Hayat v. The State ( 1974 P Cr. L J 450 ), the Deputy Superintendent of Police why conducted the investigation opined about the innocence of the accused but some other officer did not agree with the opinion of the D.S.P., it was held :-"The circumstance that some other Police Officer, without himself investigating the case, disagreed with the D. S. P. does not neces sarily mean that he disagreed with his opinion on merits of case Moreover, it is the opinion of the Investigating Officer which is to be counted and not other person whose capacity would not be more than that of advisory. Considering all the circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner can take due benefit of the aforesaid opinion which I have no reason at this stage to doubt as dishonest or mala fide. Accord ingly, I accept this petition".

6. In view of the opinion of the Investigating Officers about the innocence of the petitioner, his case is that of further enquiry falling under section 497 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He is therefore, admitted to bail in the sum of Rs. 30,000 (Thirty thousand) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A. C., Sheikhupura.

M. Y. H. Bail granted.