MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus THE STATE

1. A case is registered against the petitioner alongwith others under section 302/148/149/109, P.P.C. at Police Station Sangla Hill on 19‑10‑1981. The allegation against the petitioner is that he took the deceased for a Shikar of ducks and in the course of the same fired a shot at him which hit at the waist of the deceased and thus murdered him. Thereafter throwing the gun on the spot he ran away alongwith his companions. It is stated by learned counsel that the petitioner was admitted to bail on 13‑1‑1982 by the Sessions Court on the statement of Nabi Ahmed, A.S.I. that he was declared innocent in the course of investigation and that he was no more required by the police. So, according to learned counsel, the local investigating agency had found him innocent in the course of investigation. Thereafter, it appears that the matter was also investigated by three different agencies, i.e., D.S.P. Headquarters, A.S.P., Gujranwala and eventually the Crimes Branch. Out of them the D.S.P. Headquarters and A.S.P., Gujranwala bad opined that according to their investigation the offence was covered section 304, 'P.P.C. Thus it is stated that different investigating agencies have arrived at different conclusions in the course of investigation about the part ascribed to the petitioner and even the Branch which has eventually reported that prima facie case under section 302, P.P.C. etc. is made out against the petitioner had deceased the report that one Aamer had fired the fatal shot at the deceased.

2. Admit. Notice. Summon the investigating officer for 19‑5‑1984 alongwith the police record. Place it before any Single Bench.

2. Javid Iqbal, C.J.

3. Syed Muhammad Kaleem Ahmad Khurshid, Advocate for the Petitioner.

4. S.M. Masood for Complainant.

5. Syed Zulfikar Haider for the State.

ORDER

6. In continuation of my order, dated 5‑5‑1984 the case was registered against the petitioner on 19‑10‑1981. In the meantime four different investigating Agencies have conducted investigation in the matter. First the matter was investigated by the local police which declared the present petitioner as well as others as innocent. Thereafter the D.S.P. Headquarters conducted the investigation of the case and he declared that the allegation against the petitioner could at the most be under section 304, P.P.C. Then the investigation was entrusted to Muhammad Ali, A.S.P., Gujranwala who vide Zimni, dated 9‑2‑198 gave the finding that the petitioner may be challaned under section 304, P.P.C. Lastly the investigation was transferred to Crimes Branch and the D.S.P. Crimes Branch namely, Sultan Ahmad, reported that A there was prima facie case against the petitioner and, therefore, he sent up the challan. Thus it evident that four different investigating Agencies have conducted investigations in the matter varying from one another, even though the D.S.P. Crimes Branch has arrived at his conclusion that prima facie case was made against the present petitioner. It may be noted that he had submitted his last report to that effect on 3‑12‑1983 i.e. almost two years after the occurrence. In the light o what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioner appears to be of further inquiry and, therefore, I admit him to bail subject to his furnishing security in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhu pura. This petition is disposed of.

7. M.A.K. Bail admitted.