2000 P Cr (PLP)

Abdur Razzaq, petitioner seeks his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 170 of 1998, dated 30-5-1998 under section 302/34, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Kanganpur, District Kasur.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that during the preceding night of 30-5-1998 at about 2-30 in the morning, the complainant alongwith his son Asghar Ali and daughter-in-law Tahira Yasmeen, were sleeping in the house. He got up on hearing noise of some movement.. He saw Jan Muhammad and Abdur Razzaq (petitioner) armed with .12 bore guns alongwith two other unknown persons armed with Sotas standing in the compound of the house. Abdur Razzaq, petitioner, raised Lalkara to catch hold of Asghar Ali and kill him to teach a lesson for levelling false allegation of theft against them. Meanwhile, Ilam Din and Tahira Yasmin also got up. The accused were identified in the light of electric bulb which was on. On Lalkara of the petitioner, Jan Muhammad accused fired with his gun on Asghar which hit him in front side of his left shoulder. Asghar Ali tried to catch hold of the accused but he fell down and succumbed to the injuries. The complainant and the eye-witnesses followed the accused but they ran away towards the West by resorting to firing. The motive of the occurrence, according to the complainant, is that some theft incident had taken place two months earlier to the occurrence, in the house of Asghar Ali who suspected Jan Muhammad, etc. They were asked to take oath on Holy Qur'an to prove their innocence for which they felt incensed, and in order to avenge this disgrace, they murdered Asghar Ali.

3. The petitioner was arrested on 2-11-1998. The challan has not been submitted even in the prosecution branch so far. No recovery has been effected from the petitioner. Only one empty was recovered from the spot which is alleged to have been fired from the gun of Jan Muhammad.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the, petitioner is only attributed Lalkara. There is previous enmity between the parties. He has been falsely implicated by the complainant on account of being brother of Jan Muhammad who allegedly fired at the deceased. He is in jail since 2-11-1998 and the challan has not been presented even in the prosecution branch so far, and as such is entitled to grant of bail. .

5. Mr. Muhammad Akrarn Qureshi, Advocate for the complainant assisted by State Counsel has opposed the grant of bail on the ground that ' petitioner is also involved in many other criminal cases. Therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of bail.

6. Heard. Record perused.

7. According to the version of the F.I.R. the petitioner is only attributed Lalkara. It is his brother, Jan Muhammad, who allegedly fired at the deceased. It is also stated in the F.I.R. that while running away the accused were firing but this fact is not established during the investigation. The Investigating Officer states that only one empty was recovered from the place of occurrence which was fired by Jan Muhammad, co-accused. No other empty having been found at the spot, version of the prosecution that the accused resorted to firing to secure their escape is not established. The petitioner is the real brother of Jan Muhammad, the main accused, therefore, his plea of false implication on that account, cannot be lightly ignored. Admittedly the complainant and petitioner are inimical towards each other. Many criminal cases stand registered against both the parties at each others... The petitioner, although, was involved in case F.I.R. No.191 of 1994 alongwith others, for raising Lalkara, but he has been acquitted in that case. Similarly, case F.I.R. No.224 of 1994 under Arms Ordinance also stands registered against him but the record does not show that he was ever convicted in this case. The third case registered against him vide F.I.R. No.67 of 1997 under section 324/337/148/149, P.P.C. is still pending adjudication. The prosecution has not been able to show his conviction in any case, so far therefore, his plea that he has been falsely involved in this case due to enmity, cannot be brushed aside. He is behind the bars for more than one year and the allegation against him is only of raising Lalkara which needs further probe to attract applicability of section 34, P.P.C. In the light of circumstances stated above, petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./A-89/L Bail granted.