GHULAM RASOOL Versus THE STATE
ORDER
Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 65 of 1999, dated 27-3-1999 under sections 302, 324 and 109/34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Kallar Sayedan, District Rawalpindi.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that on 24-2-1999 Khalid Ahmad a brother of Jamil Ahmad was abducted by Muhammad Yaqoob who was later on got released. However, a case against Muhammad Yaqoob was registered under section 365/511, P.P.C. at Police Station Kallar Sayedan. The investigation of said case was entrusted to Ch. Muhammad Afzal, D.S.P., by the order of D.I.-G. On 27-3-1999 Ch. Muhammad Afzal, D.S.P. arrived at the spot in connection with investigation. During the investigation Muhammad Ashfaq son of Haji Mushtaq Hussain, Muhammad Jamil son of Takka Khan and Muhammad Javed son of Sultan Ali were also present and they deposed against Muhammad Yaqoob, who felt annoyed upon their statements. After the close of investigation he (complainant) alongwith Muhammad Ashfaq, Muhammad Jamil, Muhammad Javed, Zia-ul-Haq and Muhammad Ishtiaq made for their village and at 10-30 a.m. had reached in front of U.B.L. Branch, situated in Samot Bazar when suddenly a Pajero bearing No. 6401/DIR emerged, which was being driven by Nasir Mehmood and Muhammad Yaqoob, Abdul Qayyum and Ghulam Rasool sons of Manga Khan were present in the said vehicle. The said vehicle was stopped in front of them. Abdul Qayyum raised Lalkara for teaching them lesson for deposing against Muhammad Yaqoob and thereafter Abdul Qayyum, Muhammad Yaqoob and Ghulam Rasool (present petitioner) started firing upon them with their respective kalashnikov. He (complainant) Zia-ul-Haq and Ishtiaq laid down on the ground and escaped from the firing of the assailants. However, Muhammad Ashfaq, Muhammad Jameel, Muhammad Sharif as well as Muhammad Javed received injuries and out of them except Muhammad Javed, remaining died on the spot. Hence the instant F. I. R. The petitioner applied for post-arrest bail which was refused by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order, dated 27-5-1999. He again repeated the same but was again declined the same relief vide order, dated 12-11-1999. Hence the instant petition.
2. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as a result of this occurrence as many as three persons have died and one received injuries, that the number of injuries on the person of deceased as well as injured, come to 9 whereas 10 empties have been recovered from the place of occurrence, that the accused have been implicated for causing injuries to the deceased as well as to the injured by no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner, that the investigation of this case was initially conducted by local police and the petitioner was declared innocent, that later on the same was entrusted to the A.S.P./S.D.P.O. who also verified the investigation as well as finding of the local police, that on the application of complainant the investigation was against changed and was entrusted to Mr. Sikandar Hayat, S.P. Crimes Branch who also found the present petition innocent and verified the investigation conducted earlier. He further contended that no recovery has been made from the present petitioner and on the other hand kalashnikovs have been recovered from Muhammad Yaqoob and Abdul Qayyum and the same were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and as per report, 9 empties out of the 10 have been found to be wedded with the kalashnikovs recovered from his co-accused Muhammad Yaqoob and Abdul Qayyum. He contended that petitioner has simply been involved in this case being brother of Muhammad Yaqoob and Abdul Qayyum accused. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as a result of supplementary statement offence under section 109, P.P.C. has been added. He further submits that petitioner was arrested on 13-4-1999 and since then is in judicial lock-up. In support of his contention he has relied upon Manzoor and 4 others v. The State PLD 1972 SC 81, Abdul Manan alias Bilan v. The State PLD 1999 Lah. 74, Muhammad Ilyas v. Ijaz Ahmad Butt and another 1992 SCMR 1857 and Gulzar Ahmad v. The State 1994 SCMR 1728. He submitted that all these facts and circumstances make the case of petitioner open for further enquiry and petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.
4. Conversely bail application has been opposed by the learned counsel for the State. However, he admits that as per initial investigation of local police as well-as by the A.S.P./S.D.P.O. and S.P. Crimes Branch, the petitioner has been found innocent. He further states that name of the petitioner has been placed in Column No. 2 of the report under section 173, Cr.P.C.
5. The petitioner alongwith his other co-accused stands charged under section 302/324/109/34, P.P.C. for committing the murder of Muhammad Ashfaq, Muhammad Jameel and Muhammad Sharif and causing injuries to Muhammad Javed. The petitioner has been shown to be armed with kalashnikov at the relevant time. However, as a result of three successive investigations nothing has been recovered from him and he has been found innocent. As per facts stated above, as many as 10 empties have been recovered from the place of occurrence, out of which 9 have been found to be wedded with the kalashnikovs recovered at the instance of his co-accused A Muhammad Yaqoob and Abdul Qayyum. Admittedly name of `petitioner has been placed in Column No. 2 which fact itself corroborates the contention of the petitioner that prosecution has not been able to collect sufficient evidence to connect him with the commission of this offence even till the submission of challan and as such his case requires further probe.
6. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioner, squarely falls within the ambit of section 497(2), Cr.P.C., as such petition is accepted and he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the g sum of Rs. 2 lacs with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
N.H.Q./G-48/L Bail allowed.