MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus State

ORDER

SARDAR AHMED NAEEM, J.--- Muhammad Iqbal, petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case registered vide No.579/2018 dated 19.06.2018, at Police Station Saddar, Faisalabad, for offence under sections 302, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 34, P.P.C.

2. Allegedly, the petitioner being member of unlawful assembly and in prosecution of its common object committed Qatl-i-amd of Zahoor Ahmad, the deceased.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it was noticed that the petitioner was nominated in the FIR with specific role of causing firearm injury hitting on the back of the deceased, which contributed towards death as suggested by the postmortem report. The version of the complainant gets support from the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. Deeper appreciation of evidence cannot be undertaken at this stage. The Investigating Agency concluded that the petitioner was empty handed and merely present at the crime scene is not based on some convincing evidence. Ipse dixit of police is not binding upon the Court. No other evidence was collected during the investigation to record such findings. In a similar case titled "Mohsin Ali v. The State and others" (2016 SCMR 1529), the apex Court turned down the petition with the observation, which read as under:

"It is not disputed that the eye-witnesses mentioned in the FIR have so far stood by their statements made before the police fully implicating the petitioner in the murder in issue and prima facie the medical evidence lends sufficient support to the allegation levelled against the petitioner.... The Investigating Agency had opined in its report submitted under section 173, Cr.P.C. that the petitioner was guilty only of providing behind the scene abetment to his co-accused and that he was not present at the scene of crime at the relevant time...... that the opinion so recorded by the Investigating Agency is not based upon sound material."

4. The trial in this case has been commenced and reportedly seven witnesses have been examined. The offence is heinous and catches the prohibition contained under section 497, Cr.P.C., thus, I would refrain to comment upon the merits of this case lest the case of the parties is prejudice.

4(sic.) For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed.

However, the learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial within three months after the receipt of the copy of this order.

JK/M-160/L Petition dismissed.