JEHANGIR Versus THE STATE

ORDER

Petitioner Jehangir through the instant petition has sought for post‑arrest bail in the case F.I.R. No.216, dated 24‑7‑2003 under sections 302/324/148/149/109, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Sukheki, District Hafizabad.

2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. is that on 24‑7‑2003 at about 9‑00 a.m. Jehangir armed with .8 mm rifle. Ghazanfar with .7 mm rifle, Sarfraz with 8 mitt rifle, Zafar with 222 rifle and Dost Muhammad 8 mm rifle were ambush at a distance of about 3/4 acres from the village. Khurshid, the brother of the complainant, Shaukat and Qamar Zaman were on their way to Dera from the village. They when reached near them and saw them in ambush while armed, they started running on the road towards the west to save themselves. They chased them. They while doing so had remained firing on them. They at the distance of about 8/9 acres overtook and encircled them. Jehangir with 8 mm rifle fired at Shaukat, which hit on his left hip joint Fida Hussain 'fired with rifle, which hit at his left flank. Ghazanfar fired with rifle at Khurshid, which hit him little below his left knee. The other accused remained firing straight at them with their respective weapons. Qamar Zaman saved himself while lying in the Khal. On the attraction of the people at the spot, they left the scene while firing. Shaukat succumbed to his injury in the way to the hospital.

3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in on account of long standing enmity between them and the complainant party, that according to the F.I.R., he with rifle had fired at Shaukat deceased, which hit on his left hip joint while on his dead body no such injury had been found to be there; that he during the investigation by the local police as well as the Range Crime, Gujranwala had been found to be innocent; that nothing has been recovered from him; that all these facts make his case as one of further inquiry into his guilt; that he is behind the bars for the last about seven months and so far his trial has not commenced even; and that he is previous non- convict.

4. Conversely the learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the petition on the ground that he is named in the promptly lodged F.I.R.; that he has been ascribed injury with 8 mm rifle to the deceased hitting on his left hip joint and the same has contributed towards his death and that though he has been found innocent by the local police but such finding of the police is not binding upon this Court while there is sufficient material available on the record to connect him with the crime.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions made from both the sides with the help of the available record.

6. According to the F.I.R. he had fired shot with 8 mm rifle at Shaukat deceased which hit at his left hip joint.

7. There has been found two injuries on the dead body of the deceased on the post‑mortem examination. One of these is entry wound and the other it's exit. The exit wound has been described as injury No.2 in the report. The same was at left hip joint. It seemingly was not an independent injury. So apparently this is in conflict to the ocular version in respect of his role in the alleged incident.

8. Besides than this, he during the investigation by the local police has been found to be innocent. He according to the Range Crime Police has not participated in the occurrence. Though opinion of the police is not binding upon Court but it is a relevant circumstance to be taken into, consideration while determining such a question.

9. Admittedly nothing has been recovered from him. All these facts definitely render his case as one of further inquiry into his guilt and so the same is amply covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.

10. He is behind the bars and stated to be previous non‑convict.

11. In these circumstances, I, find that the case for his enlargement on bail has been made out. The petition, therefore, is accepted and he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Hafizabad/trial Court.

12. It is here made clear that any observation made above shall not influence the mind of the trial Court in any manner.

H.B.T./J‑22/L Bail granted.