1988 P Cr (PLP)

Abdul Khaiiq Khan for the State. Rab Nawaz Khan Niazi for the Complainant. This is a petition for bail on behalf of Kashmir and Aman Ullah petitioners who alongwith others are involved in a case under sections 148, 302 and 325 read with section 149, P.P.C.

2. The prosecution version is that Mst. Zetun, daughter of Amir accused, is married with the son of Mehbub complainant arid in exchange Mst. Sakina, daughter of the complainant, is married with the son of aforesaid Amir. The complainant is a resident of village Pai Khel. On 8th June, 1987 at 5-30 a.m. Mehbub complainant and his sons Akbar, Akrain, Asghar and Ashraf, his nephews Matloob and Ayub, and their father Yaqub (real brother of the complainant) were taking tea at the tea-stall of Gul Muhammad when co-accused Muhammad Amir came there. They asked him to send Mst. Sakina with them. A short while after, the petitioners and their co-accused Ghaus, Amir, Aziz, Abdullah, Aziz Ullah, armed with Sotas, and Abdul Ghafur, armed with a gun, came there. Kashmir petitioner raised a Lalkara that they would not be spared. A stone was hurled on the head of Ghulam Asghar. Then both the petitioners gave Sota blows to Yaqub, as a result of which he fell down. Then all the accused caused injuries to Ghulam Asghar, Muhammad Ayub, Muhammad Akbar and Matloob. Abdul Ghafur accused and Kashmir petitioner snatched the gun of Akbar son of Mehbub complainant. On the next day Yaqub succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. The motive for the occurrence was that Mst. Zetun, daughter of Amir accused, was not living with her husband while Mst. Sakina; daughter of Mehbub complainant, had been detained by her husband who was not permitting the complainant party to see her. The complainant party had come from village Pai Khel to request the accused party to behave but they did not care instead injured the complainant party.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends thata the petitioners have been falsely implicated and in fact the members of the complainant party had come to the village of the accused, armed with deadly weapons to attack them and they caused injuries to as many as five persons which find no mention in the F.I.R. It is submitted that the complainant party was the aggressor, therefore, petitioners are entitled to the grant of bail. Learned counsel for the complainant and the State have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the members of the complainant party had come from their village Pai Khel to request the accused party for a compromise, on which the accused got infuriated and attacked the complainant party resulting in the death of Yaqub and injuries to four others, therefore, no ground of bail is made out.

4. I have considered the submissions made at the bar in the light of the material available on the record. Admittedly, the occurrence took place near the hotel of Gul Muhammad. On inquiry the learned counsel for the complainant states that the village of the accused persons is at a distance of one furlong from the place of occurrence. In the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. it has been stated that during the investigation it transpired that the members of the complainant party came from village Pai Khel merely to have a fight. During the occurrence five persons on the accused side suffered blunt and sharp weapon injuries. Co-accused Ghaus Muhammad was in a serious condition. Muhammad Amir co-accused had two injuries on the head which were declared grievous. All these injuries were suppressed in the F.I.R. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel inclined to the view that the case of the petitioners needs further inquiry. I, therefore, admit them to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Mianwali. S.A./K-80/L Bail granted.