AHMAD ALIAS AHMAN Versus STATE

ORDER

The learned counsel for the petitioners does not want to press the bail petition in respect of the petitioners Nos.2 and 3 so as to be able to move for their bail, once again, before the learned Sessions Judge.

2. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends for bail on behalf of the petitioner No.l Ahmad alias Ahman son of Bakhtawar.

3. The brief facts leading to the present bail petition are that an F.I.R. No.140, dated 18-3-1989 was registered at Police Station Tandlianwala, District Faisalabad under section 302/148/149, P.P.C. against the petitioner Ahmad and four others by the complainant Salat.

4. According to the F.I.R. the accused had attacked the complainant party while armed with guns. It is further stated therein that the petitioner Ahmad had fired at the deceased which hit him on the left thigh and that thereafter co-accused Manzoor and Liaqat had caught hold of the deceased by the arms and that thereafter co-accused Hamad fired on his chest whereas Sakindar co-accused fired on the back of the left thigh. It is further stated that P.W. Bashir was ineffectively fired upon by co-accused Liaqat while he was running from the place of occurrence.

5. The learned counsel contends for the bail of Ahmad alias Ahman, petitioner; on the following grounds:--

(i) That the petitioner was found to be innocent by the D.S.P. during the investigation but even then his name was not placed in column No.2 by the prosecution Agency, and that, therefore, the benefit of doubt so arising, nevertheless, should go to the petitioner even at the bail stage. In this respect the learned counsel relied upon the following authorities to support of his contention;

(i) M. Hayat v. The State 1974 P Cr. L J 450, wherein the accused charged under section 302 was admitted to bail as he had been found innocent during the investigation, although, his name was not placed in column No.2.

(ii) Nisar Ali v. The State 1984 P Cr. L J 425, wherein the accused charged under section 302/34, P.P.C. was granted bail as he had been found innocent during the investigation but his name had not been placed in column No.2 and the said fact was stated to be immaterial.

(iii) Akbar and 2 others v. The State 1985 P Cr. L J 1878, herein the accused charged under section 302/148/149, P.P.C. was granted bail, as according to the Ziminies, he was found not to be present at the spot.

(iv) Roshan v. Sardara and 3 others 1984 S C M R 1559, herein the Honourable Supreme Court refused to interfere with the bail granted to the accused under section 302/148/149, P.P.C. as the investigation had recommended that his name be placed in column No.2 but nevertheless the prosecution agency had placed his name in column No.3, therefore, it was held that Honourable High Court was justified in granting bail to the accused as doubts had been created about the prosecution version in respect of the said accused.

(v) Bahadar and 2 others v. The State 1989 M L D 2833, wherein the accused was granted bail in a murder case, as it was held that opinion formed by the Inspector of Police in respect of the innocence of the accused should be given weight for purpose of bail.

6. The learned counsel for the State opposes the bail petition but failed to refute the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. Therefore, in view of what has been stated above on behalf of the petitioner and placing reliance on the authorities cited in support of the said E contentions, the petitioner No.l Ahmad alias Ahman son of Bakhtawar is hereby admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C., Faisalabad.

8. The petition for bail in respect of the petitioner No.2 Manzoor and petitioner No.3 Liaqat is hereby dismissed as having been withdrawn.

N.H.Q./A-537/L Order accordingly.