AMJAD SULTAN Versus THE STATE

ORDER

This is an application for grant of bail to Amjad Sultan petitioner in case under section 302/307/427/109, P.P.C. registered at P.S. South Cantt. Lahore vide F.I.R. No. 40/87, dated 13‑2‑1987.

2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner caused the death of Major Allah Bakhsh Tiwana in the area of Officers Colony, Lahore Cantt. The earlier plea for the bail of the petitioner was rejected by this Court on 4‑7‑1987.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the disposal of the earlier application, fresh grounds have arisen in due course of events which may entitle the petitioner to the concession of bail. Learned counsel explained that Muhammad Azim approver in an application for bail moved by him before the learned Sessions Judge has repudiated the status of an approver and narrated the circumstances in which he was forced to make two statements under section 164, Cr.P.C., that although the Investigating Officer had stated before this Court at the time of the hearing of the earlier application of the petitioner that arrangements were being made for holding parade for the identification of the petitioner yet no parade was held; that the statement of Mir Baz witness of Vajtakar was fabricated belatedly because had his statement been recorded on the day of occurrence, the police would have made efforts to join the petitioner in the investigation. Learned counsel for the State has opposed this application.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that the previous application of the petitioner for grant of bail to him in the instant case was dismissed by me on 4‑7‑1984; that the detailed reasons for the rejection of the plea of the bail of the petitioner have been given in that order and that in the circumstances of the case and in view of the material collected by the police against the petitioner, the arguments of the learned counsel that Muhammad Azim has repudiated his status of approver in an application for bail moved before the learned Sessions Judge; that the challan has been submitted; that the statement of Mir Baz was fabricated subsequently and that no arrangements for holding parade for the identification of the petitioner were made although it had been stated by the Investigating Officer in this Court that arrangements were being made for the holding of identification parade, hardly constitute reasonable fresh grounds to believe that the petitioner had not committed the alleged offence. Needless to repeat that by now it is well‑recognized that while considering bail application, the Court has not to examine the merits of the prosecution case, to assess the credibility of the evidence or make appraisal of the material on record. Instead it has to look on the material collected by the Investigating Officer in order to come to the conclusion as to whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner has committed the alleged offence.

For what has been said above, this second application for bail is also dismissed.

S. A./ A‑249/ L Bail rejected.