MUMTAZ Versus THE STATE

ORDER

The petitioner Mumtaz son of Peera, who is involved in a criminal case under section 307/34/341, P.P.C. arising out of F.I.R. No. 216, dated 30‑8‑1987, registered at Police Station Sadar Okara, seeks to be admitted to bail.

2. It has been alleged that on 22‑8‑1987, Gulzar Ahmad complainant accompanied by Bashir Ahmad returned from Okara after purchasing insecticide on the Yamaha motor‑cycle. At about 9‑30 p, m. they reached in the area of Chak No.6/4‑L, when suddenly four persons emerged in front of them. They could recognise Mumtaz petitioner armed with pistol and Waqar Ahmad armed with .12 bore gun, while two other persons were not known to the complainant and Bashir previously. The complainant declared to the assailants that they had been recognised by the complainant and his companion, whereupon the petitioner and Waqar Ahmad fired at them with their respective weapons. Consequently, the complainant and Bashir Ahmad sustained injuries. The occurrence was witnessed by Zafar lqbal and Muhammad Azam who were following the complainant Gulzar Ahmad on another motor‑cycle. In the meantime, residents of the neighbouring area also reached the scene of occurrence on the reports of fires, The complainant and his injured' companion Bashir were taken in injured condition to Civil Hospital, Okara, from where the complainant was sent to Civil Hospital, Sahiwal and ultimately to Mayo Hospital, Lahore. After having been discharged from Mayo Hospital, Lahore, the complainant lodged the F.I.R. on 30‑8‑1987 and also produced the medico‑legal reports pertaining to himself and Bashir Ahmad.

3. The injury attributed to the petitioner is a simple one. The F.I.R. in this case has been lodged nine days after the occurrence. It transpires from the records of investigation that services of trackers were available for tracing out the actual culprits. The trackers opined that the petitioner and his co‑accused Waqar were not the real culprits. The local police declared the petitioner to be innocent. S.P also observed that the case against the petitioner and his co‑accused Waqar was doubtful.

4. In the above circumstances, the case against the petitioner is that of further inquiry within the meaning of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is, therefore, admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the, A.C., Okara.

M.Y.H./M‑656/L Bail granted.