1996 P Cr (PLP)

Mohssan Raza Qazilbash for the State. The petitioner through this Criminal Miscellaneous No.677/B of 1996 seeks bail after arrest under section 497, Cr.P.C. in case F.I.R. No.68/95, dated 23-7-1995 registered under section 302/34, P.P.C. with Police Station Johar Town, Lahore.

2. As per F.I.R. facts of the case are that on 23-7-1995 at 11-30 p.m. (night) the petitioner alongwith his two brothers allegedly murdered Mst. Azra their sister and one Ijaz Ahmed son of the complainant in the room of their house; the petitioner was arrested in the case and has been confined since 9-8-1995 in the judicial lock-up.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner accidentally killed both under Ghairat as he had seen his sister Mst. Azra to a compromising condition with Ijaz Ahmad, further contended that the legal heirs of deceased Azra have granted pardon (Afw) to the petitioner and the co accused's pre-arrest bail has already been confirmed by this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No.4182/B of 1995 while Bashir Ahmad and Muhammad Hanif co-accused were found innocent and were got discharged by the police; as a rule of consistency the petitioner is entitled to the grant of bail.

4. The learned State Counsel assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant controverted the arguments of learned counsel by contending that the petitioner had been specifically named as the murderer; the F.I.R. was lodged promptly; story of seeing both the deceased in a compromising condition was a concocted story and the offence clearly falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and that the - petitioner thus did not deserve the concession of bail:

5. From a bare reading of the F.I.R. and perusal of inquest report; the plea of having acted under Ghairat stands spelt out; further the defence plea is being supported from the material collected during the course of investigation even the F.I.R. itself sufficiently demonstrates that the petitioner's plea about the compromising position could have prompted him to kill both the accused and further no motive has been ascribed to commit murder.

6. In a similar case like in hand; reported as Muhammad Siddique v. The State PLD 1994 Lah. 129 it was held that:-- "It is a principle too well established by-now that the defence plea, if any, can be considered for the purpose of grant or otherwise of bail. The state of law as it exists in our country does make a definite allowance for the people acting under grave and sudden provocation."

7. In Criminal Miscellaneous No.2197/B of 1995 wherein the facts were identical; the learned Judge of the High Court following the dictum laid down in supra case of Muhammad Siddique v. The State granted bail to the petitioner; no one either respectable or a person of low status to certain elements of our society, would not tolerate such a situation where a young girl of his dearest is found in compromising position with some one else; which is worst sort of sudden provocation.

8. Admittedly two co-accused have been got discharged by the police I being found innocent while the 3rd one's pre-arrest bail has been confirmed by this Court; when similar role of murder was assigned as none had seen occurrence; in fact is a case of no evidence; the principle of consistency demands that the petition should also be released on bail in view of act being done in Ghairat. The petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing the bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Lahore. N.H.Q./M-71/L Bail allowed.