1997 P Cr (PLP)

Syed Amanullah Shah v. The State and another PLD 1996 SC 241 ref. Azam Nazir Tarrar for Petitioners. Waheed Anwar for the State. On 16-4-1996 at Police Station Kot Ladha, Gujranwala a case under section 364, P.P.C. was registered against Imran Shahzad, his father Riasat Ali and brother-in-law Javaid Ahmad accused at the instance of Ghulam Hussain. It was alleged that on 12-4-1996 a quarrel took place between Imran Shahzad accused and Zulfiqar Ali alias Bhutto deceased the nephew of the complainant over which the former was annoyed with the latter. On 14-4-1996 Zulfiqar Ali alias Bhutto aforesaid disappeared and his whereabouts could not be traced out. On 16-4-1996 Imran Shahzad accused disclosed that he had murdered ZuIfiqar Ali alias Bhutto. The complainant asserted that Imran Shahzad accused on the instigation of Riasat Ali and Javaid Ahmad co-accused had abducted the deceased and murdered him.

2. On 17-4-1996 the dead body of Zulfiqar Ali alias Bhutto was recovered at the instance of Imran Shahzad accused and sections 302, 109 and 201, P.P.C. were added in the F. I. R.

3. Riasat Ali and Javaid Ahmad accused, petitioners herein, who were arrested on 11-5-1996, have applied for their bail.

4. I have heard the parties' learned counsel and have also gone through the record.

5. The only allegation against the petitioners is that they had conspired with Imran Shahzad to kill the deceased. The allegation of actual killing is attributed to Imran Shahzad accused. With regard to conspiracy the complainant produced two witnesses namely Ashfaq and Gulzar before the Investigating Officer for the first time on 2-5-1996 i.e. about 16 days after the lodging of the I.R. They stated that while going through the Bazar when they passed in front shop of Riasat Ali they overheard the petitioners asking Imran Shahzad accused to kill the deceased Admittedly the aforesaid two witnesses run shops in Sheikhupura and Faisalabad and were not ordinarily residing in the village where the occurrence took place. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the said witnesses were false witnesses who had been planted in connivance with the Investigating Agency to falsely implicate the petitioners. He maintained that it was highly improbable that a conspiracy to kill the deceased was hatched so openly in a Bazar where the passersby easily overheard the conspirators. Learned counsel relied on Syed Amanullah Shah v. The State and another PLD 1996 SC 241 to urge that since admittedly the petitioners were not present at the time and place of occurrence their case was on a better footing than that of an accused to whom allegation of abetment/Lalkara is attributed and as bail is generally allowed to the accused against whom there is only an allegation of Lalkara the petitioners would have a better case for the grant of bail. Learned counsel for the State could not adequately controvert the aforementioned contentions. In these circumstances I hold that this is a case of further inquiry. The petitioners, therefore, are admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Ilaqa/Judicial Magistrate, Gujranwala. N.H.Q./J-16/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail allowed.