1987 PLP 788 (SCMR)

Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Altaf Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for the State. Date of hearing: 25th February, 1987. S.A. NUSRAT, J.‑‑ This petition, which is from the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 4‑10‑1986 is converted into appeal, notice having been issued to the respondents, and is being disposed of accordingly.

2. The respondents Muhammad Latif and Muhammad Naveed are charged with the commission of offence of murder of Muhammad Munir. The incident took place on 29‑3‑1986 at 2‑00 p. m. and the F. I. R. was lodged on the same day at Shalimar Police Station, Lahore at 2‑45 p.m. by the petitioner Bahadur. According to the F. I. R. both the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 armed with rifles alongwith their co‑accused Muhammad Jehangir and Farooq, armed with pistols, come to the shop of the petitioner where he alongwith his two brothers Muhammad Munir and Muhammad Bashir were present. They arrived at the place of occurrence raising Lalkara and firing whereupon Muhammad Munir, deceased, climbed the roof of an under‑construction shop. Muhammad Latif respondent followed him and fired from his rifle which hit the deceased on his left temple killing him on the spot. Bashir (P. W.) ran for his life and was fired at by respondent No.2 Muhammad Naveed from his rifle hitting him on the leg. Muhammad Jehangir co‑accused struck the petitioner with the butt of his pistol. Farooq co‑accused allegedly continued firing to scare the people.

3. The respondents initially applied for bail in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore which was dismissed on 26‑7‑1986. They approached the High Court for bail which was allowed as per impugned judgment.

4. Before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, it was pleaded that on the fateful day respondent Muhammad Latif had attended a marriage ceremony in village Budha Tehsil Ferozewala District Sheikhupura throughout the day and this fact was affirmed by a police officer. The respondent Muhammad Latif was also shown to be attesting witness to the Nikahnama, which was produced in defence. The learned Sessions Judge was not impressed by these assertions but such plea of alibi weighed with the learned Judge in the High Court who granted bail to respondent Muhammad Latif on this ground. As regards Muhammad Naveed the learned High Court was of the opinion that only a simple injury caused to Bashir (P.W.) was attributed to him. He too was admitted to bail.

5. We heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned judgment of the learned High Court as also the reasons given for rejection of bail by the learned Sessions Judge. There is no denying the fact that the respondent Muhammad Latif is directly charge in the F.I.R. for having killed Muhammad Munir with a rifle shot. The F.I.R. was promptly lodged within 45 minutes by the petitioner. As respects the contention that the Investigating Officer had found the plea to alibi to be correct, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that in fact both the respondents have since then been challaned for the commission of the offence. This fact was not controverted by the learned counsel for the respondents and was confirmed by the learned Assistant Advocate‑General. It is needless to comment that the alleged theory of alibi has still to stand the test of scrutiny on the basis of evidence. The respondent Muhammad Naveed is shown to have cause injury to Bashir (P.W.) and the case having been registered under sections 302, 307 read with section 34 Pakistan Penal Code his case could not be separated for the purpose of grant of bail.

6. For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned judgment of the learned High Court is set aside and the bail granted to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 is cancelled who shall be taken into custody forthwith. S.Q./B‑5/S Bail cancelled.