1986 P Cr (PLP)

R.A. Awan for the Complainant. Farooq Bedar, A.A.‑G. assisted by Arif Sajjad Khan for the State. This order will dispose of the bail petition moved by Shafqat Bari, Inspector Police (Criminal Miscellaneous 15‑B/86) and Abdul Rashid A.S.I. (Criminal Miscellaneous 163‑B/86) in a case under section 304/34; P.P.C. pertaining to the death of Ghulam Haider deceased.

2. It is stated that Shafqat Bari, Inspector C.I.A., Staff, Lahore, Abdul Rashid A.S.I. and a few police constables had arrested Ghulam Haider deceased and his companion Riaz on 28‑9‑1985 in a case under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition Order, section 307/353, P.P.C. and section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, XX of 1965 on the allegation that two killos of Charas had been recovered from each of them and that before recovery Ghulam Haider deceased had tried to assault the police officials with the dagger. On the same day at the instance of Ghulam Haider deceased some more Charas and opium was recovered from his house for which a separate case was registered against him on the report of Shafqat Bari petitioner. Ghulam Haider deceased while in the police custody died on the night of 28‑9‑1985 where after a case under section 302/34, P.P.C. was registered against Shafqat Bari, Inspector, Abdul Rashid A.S.I. and some constables on the report of Irshad Begum widow of Ghulam Haider deceased. According to her the police officials had tortured the deceased resulting in his death. His post‑mortem examination was conducted on 29‑9‑1985 and as many as 26 injuries were found on his person. Clotted blood was found below injuries Nos. 1, 2 and

3. Brain was found congested. Right scrotum was found contused. On dissection tissue underneath was ecchymosed and clotted blood was present in the scrotum sack. The cause of death was stated to be traumatic asphyxia.

3. A judicial inquiry was also held into the matter by Mr. Sardar Ali Gondal, M.I.C., Lahore. According to him the deceased had died as a result of violence.

4. Bail is urged on the grounds that it was an unwitnessed occurrence and the eye‑witnesses have been falsely introduced. It is further stated that Riaz who has furnished the ocular account is a close relative of the deceased arid was opposed to the petitioners because he has been arrested by them alongwith the deceased for keeping Charas in his possession. It is next contended that none of the injuries is specifically attributed to any of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners maintain that the deceased was a serious heart patient and died of heart failure and not of the alleged injuries. It is further contended that since none of the injuries was grievous or fatal or dangerous to life the case may ultimately fall under section 323 or 308, P. P. C.

4. Learned A.A.‑G. and the counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail. According to them the F.I.R. was promptly lodged. The deceased was admittedly in the custody of the petitioners when he died and the finding of the judicial inquiry establishes that the deceased had died of force and violence. Furthermore, besides Riaz two other persons namely, Karam Din and Mateen Butt had also seen the occurrence.

5. Both the petitioners are named in the F.I.R. The deceased was admittedly in their custody when he died. Twenty‑six injuries were found on his person of which no explanation is advanced. The question as to whether the alleged offence would fall under section 323 or 308, P.P.C. cannot be gone into at this stage. There is no circumstance which entitles the petitioners to bail at this stage. Accordingly, both the petitions are dismissed. H. A. K. Bail refused.