What if name of accused in column no 2 of challan

PLJ 2004 Cr.C. (Lahore) 348 Present: SH. ABDUL RASHID, J. MANZOOR AHMAD-Petitioner versus STATE.-Respondent Crl. Misc. No. 4187/B of 2003, decided on 9.12.2003. ' . Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- -S. 497-Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 34, 109-Bail grant of-Prayer for-Further inquiry-Changed version of complainant- Petitioner found innocent in successive investigations and placed in Column No. 2 of challan-Principle-Opinion of the police is inadmissible but relevant for the purpose of bail and particularly, the report U/S. 173 Cr.P.C. on the basis of cognizance is assumed by the Court-Case is further inquiry-Bail granted. [P. 350] A & B Syed Afzal Haider, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Muhammad Mudassar Bodla, Advocate for State. Date of hearing : 9.12.2003. order This is bail after arrest application in case FIR No. 485/2002, dated 0.7.2002, under Sections 302/34/109 P.P.C. of Police Station Haveli Lakha, Ustrict Okara. 2. According to the prosecution allegations set up in the FIR lodged y Muhammad Iqbal complainant on 20.7.2002 Muhammad Ashraf brother f complainant alongwith Muhammad Khan had gone to the Dera of Riaz ihmad Bodla, where the complainant alongwith Imdad Hussain and Iftikhar ihamd P.Ws were present in connection with holding of a Punchayat At bout 11/12.00 noon Ibrahim co-accused armed rifle, Muhammad Ifrahim rmed with .12 bore gun and Manzoor Ahmad petitioner armed with rifle eached there on a motorcycle. Muhammad Ibrahim co-accused called out lalkara that Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Khan would not be spared and then he fired with his rifle hitting Muhammad Khan on his right arm, Muhammad Ifrahim co-accused fired with his gun hitting Muhammad Khan on his right thigh, upon which he fell down. Thereafter, Manzoor Ahmad petitioner fired at Muhammad^Ashraf hitting him on the margins of his belly and right thigh and thereafter Muhammad Ifrahim co-accused also fired at Muhammad Khan hitting him on face and neck. The complainant alongwith other P.Ws being scared kept standing at some distance. Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Khan expired at the spot and thereafter the petitioner and his co-accused made good their escape on the motorcycle raising lalkaras. The motive for the occurrence alleged in the FIR is that the complainant and Muhammad Khan deceased had land dispute with the petitioner, Muhammad Ibrahim and Muhammad Ifrahim co-accused and the litigation was pending before Civil Court, due to which grounds, the petitioner alongwith his two co-accused had committed the occurrence at the behest of the Binyamin, Zulfiqar and Muhammad Ahmad co-accused. 3. After registration of this case on 20.7.2002 the complainant then got recorded another statement on 22.7.2002 in which he implicated Riaz Ahmad and Muhammad Rafique as abettors of the offence on whose Dera this occurrence had been committed and thereafter, the complainant also got recorded another statement before DSP on 9.5.2003 in which he implicated Nazir, Ashraf and Zafar also for having instigated and abetted the occurrence. Imdad Hussain the brother of Muhammad Khan deceased had also filed a criminal complaint implicating 12 accused including the petitioner and thereafter the complainant has also filed a criminal complaint against 17 accused including the petitioner implicating them in the occurrence. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in this case the complainant has been changing his versions before the police at different stages and had been implicating and adding more accused and then subsequently in a complaint, had implicated as many as 17 accused, whereas, the brother of Muhammad Khan deceased had also filed a criminal complaint implicating 12 accused and all these facts reflect that the complainant's side has been changing versions and that the petitioner during successive police investigations carried out by Muhammad Zawar,' S.I, Muhammad Akram S.I./SHO, Muhammad Hanif,. DSP Headquarters, Mehmood Ahmad, S.I. CIA, Abdul Rahsid S.I. Investigations, Okara and Muhammad Younas Butt, DSP investigations, Okara, had been found innocent and in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. submitted by the State, the petitioner has been placed in Column No. 2 and thus, his case is a matter of further inquiry and he is entitled to the concession of bail. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant while opposing the petitioner's bail application has argued that the investigations carried out by the police officers merely constitute opinion and rather are in-admissible in evidence and that the complainant and other eye-witnesses have attributed positive role to the petitioners of firing with his rifle at Muhammad Ashraf deceased and the offence charged against him falls within the prohibitory clause and he is not entitled to the concession of bail. 6. The perusal of the record reveals that Muhammad Ashraf complainant in his FIR had implicated six accused and thereafter he got recorded his statement on 22.7.2002 in which he implicated Riaz Ahmad and Muhammad Rafique and again on 9.5.2003 he got recorded his third statement with DSP implicating Nazir, Ashraf and Zafar as accused as well. Subsequently, the complainant had also filed a criminal complaint regarding the same occurrence in which he implicated as many as 17 accused, while Imdad Hussain brother of Muhammad Khan deceased had filed a complaint regarding the same occurrence implicating 12 accused. All these facts show that the complainant has not been consistent in his allegations regarding the occurrence and the number of the accused. 7. The investigations in this case was first taken in hand by Muhammad Zawar, S.I. who vide his zimini dated 14.9.2002 had found that the petitioner was not present at the scene of occurrence and found him to be innocent. Secondly the investigations were taken in hand by Muhammad Akram, SI/SHO, who vide his zimini dated 19.9.2002 concurred with the findings of Muhammad Zawar SI and found the petitioner to be innocent. Thirdly, the investigations were taken up by Muhammad Hanif, DSP Headquarters, who vide his zimini dated 7.10.2002 also found the petitioner to be innocent. Fourthly, in the investigations conducted by Mehmood Ahmad, SI, CIA, Okara, the petitioner was also found to be innocent. Thereafter, Abdul Rashid, SI, Investigations, carried out investigations and vide his zimini dated 1.3.2003 he also found the petitioner to be innocent being not present at the scene of occurrence and finally Muhammad Younas Butt, DSP Investigations, Okara, vide his zimini dated 22.5.2003 also concurred with all the earlier findings and found the petitioner to be not present at the scene of occurrence and thereafter in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. the name of the petitioner had been placed in Column No. 2 of the Challan. No doubt, the. opinion of the police is in-admissible but it is relevant for the purpose of bail and particularly, the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. on the basis of which cognizance is assumed by the Court, the placement of the accused in Column No. 2 is a relevant factor which as.held consistently by the superior Courts makes the case of the accused a matter of further inquiry. 8. The complainant successively changing his version implicating and adding number of accused and the petitioner found innocent in successive investigations and his name placed in Column No. 2 of the 5 challan, will make the case of the petitioner a matter of further inquiry, entitling him to the concession of bail. 9. In view of this circumstance, the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. (H.A.) Bail granted.