MUHAMMAD ARSHAD Versus THE STATE

ORDER

Petitioner Muhammad Arshad alias Goga seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.736 of 2002, dated 20-9-2002, registered under A sections 324/34/109, P.P.C. at Police Station Mughalpura, Lahore.

2. Brief facts of the case according to F.I.R. are that the complainant is a property dealer. About two years earlier he purchased a plot of three Kanals from Bao Saleem at Shalimar Link Road. The sale mutation was sanctioned. At the back of his plot towards West Bao Saleem left 15 feet land for street, which is mentioned in the sale-deed. On 18-9-2002, Muhammad Ashraf alias Bakhtar-ul-Malak came to him and in the presence of Kashif Mehmood and Parvez he said that he has to erect wall at the place of street and if the (complainant) interferes he has supplied arms and ammunition to his people, who will kill them. On 20-9-2002 at 4-00 p.m. Yameen son of Karim Bakhsh armed with pump action, Arshad alias Goga (petitioner) armed with .222 rifle, Haji Mumtaz Ahmed armed with Mauser and Haji Abdul Rehman armed with Sarya came there and started construction of wall at disputed place. The complainant and his real brother. Muhammad Khalid forbade them. Yameen etc. lost temper and started firing with their respective weapons. Muhammad Arshad's fire hit Muhammad Khalid on his right buttock, who fell on the ground. On his noise Ch. Rahmat Ali Zulfiqar son of Qamar Din, Muhammad Aslam son of Taj Din, Muhammad Yasir Iqbal son of Sadiq reached at the spot and witnessed the occurrence. The accused created terror in the area and fled away while firing. The petitioner was arrested in the case on 20-9-2002. The case was investigated by three Investigating Officers and in Zimni No.27, some concessional remarks were given by the last Investigating Officer regarding involvement of the petitioner.

3. Ch. Fawad Ahmed learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is behind the bar since 20-9-2002. The challan has been submitted in the Court but the trial has not commenced so far. The conclusion of case is likely to take considerable long period. In Zimni No.27 last Investigating Officer has recorded that the petitioner's involvement is doubtful. In these circumstances, he argues that the petitioner deserves to be released on bail.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant as well as State Counsel has opposed the bail application.

5. Heard. Record perused. The petitioner has caused injury at right buttock of Muhammad Khalid, brother of the complainant with .222 rifle. He is named in the F.I.R. and specific role is attributed to him. The version; set up in the F. I. R. is supported by M. L. R. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner's participation was found doubtful by the last Investigating Officer and the injury being on non-vital part brings his case within the purview of further inquiry, is not tenable. Muhammad Khalid injured P.W. and the complainant have specifically alleged that the petitioner has fired on him (Khalid) and caused injury to him. In presence of statement of injured P.W. the opinion of Investigating Officer given in Zimni No.27 is of little significance. The police opinion is not binding on the Court unless the same is supported by material on the record. The petitioner was arrested about five months back and the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any valid ground for his release on bail. This petition is dismissed.

H.B.T./M-120/L Application dismissed.