MUHAMMAD BOOTA Versus TAHIR MAHMOOD
ORDER
The two Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 4353/B of 1987 and 3410‑B of 1987 are for the cancellation of bail granted to Tahir Mahmood and Hassan Mohammad respectively by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura vide his order, dated 25‑11‑1987 and 12‑9‑1987 in case under section 302/324/34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Sangla Hill vide F.I.R. No. 251/1987, dated 22‑8‑1987 I propose to dispose of them through single order.
2. The prosecution case is that the respondent and Muhammad Rafiq co‑accused in furtherance of their common intention launched murderous assault on Altaf and Muhammad Ashraf and thereby caused the death of Altaf Hussain and injuries to Muhammad Ashraf.
3. As far the respondent, it has been alleged that Hassan Muhammad gave Lalkara and also took Altaf Hussain in his Japha to facilitate Muhammad Rafi co‑accused to inflict injuries to the deceased, and that Tahir Mahmood gave three Sua blows on the person of Muhammad Ashraf P.W.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the pre‑arrest bail has been allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to Hassan Muhammad in violation of the principles laid down by the superior Courts for grant/refusal of pre‑arrest bail inasmuch as neither any male fide on the part of the police or complainant was alleged nor proved; that his name is mentioned in the F .I. R. that he had actively participated in the commission of the crime and had facilitated the murder of Altaf Hussain by Muhammad Rafi co‑accused; that the eye‑witnesses namely Muhammad Ashraf and Akbar Ali rind Shaukat Ali have supported the allegations against the two respondents. So far as Tahir Mahmood is concerned, learned counsel submitted that he was found guilty by the three Investigating Officers namely Sifarish Hussain S.I. Asghar Shah Inspector/ S.H.O. and D.S.Y. (Circle) and thereafter the S.P., without investigating the case directed the Investigating Officer to declare him innocent. Learned counsel maintained that since the provisions of section 34, P.P.C. stand clearly attracted to the case of the respondents, therefore, they were not entitled, to the concession of bail specially Tahir Mahmood. Learned counsel for the State has opposed this application.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that during investigation, the police recorded statements of 37 persons in support of plea of innocence of the petitioner. The police also recorded statements of the inhabitants of the locality. In view of the statements of the persons produced before the police, the S.P. came to the conclusion that the respondents were innocent. So, the names of the petitioners were placed in column No. 2 of the challan. In view of the material collected by the police in support of the innocence of the respondents, it cannot be said that the opinion of the police is without substance. Even on merits, the respondents did not cause any injury to the deceased. Hasssan Muhammad allegedly raised Lalkara and caught hold of the deceased and Tahir Mehmood had given simple injury to a P.W. It is well‑settled that considerations for grant of bail and for cancellation thereof are different. Once bail is granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction then strong and exception grounds would be required for interference with it. Since Hassan Muhammad respondent was found innocent and had not caused any injury to the deceased and Tahir Mehmood was also found innocent and had also not caused any injury to the deceased, I am of the view that it is not a fit case for the cancellation of bail granted to the respondents by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
For what has been said above, the petition is dismissed.
M.B.A./M‑577/L ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.