2017 PLP 430 (YLRN)

SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.

The allegation against the petitioner, Naeem Tariq as per FIR No.328/15, dated 9.9.2015, under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Sahianwala (Faisalabad) is that he, being armed with Kalashnikov, joined by his heavily armed co-accused, stormed into the house of Ghulam Abbas (complainant) at 10.35 p.m. on 9.9.2015, where they murdered his father Muhammad Anwar and Behnoi Akhtar Ali, besides they badly wounded his brother Sabir Ali and mother Mst. Bashiran Bibi; they fled the spot raising Lalkaras and firing all around; the occurrence was witnessed by Muhammad Akram and Sabir Hussain. Specific attribution to the petitioner is that he fired a burst through his Kalashnikov, which hit both the legs of Akhtar Ali, due to which he died at the spot.

2. Mst. Bashiran Bibi also succumbed to the injuries on 12.12.2015. So it is a triple murder case with Sabir Ali injured, the only survivor.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that allegation against the petitioner is not complicated at all, it is plain and simple. He being armed with Kalashnikov fatally fired into the body of Akhtar Ali, which factum is fully corroborated by the contents of the postmortem examination report. His armed companions made short work of the complainant's father Muhammad Anwar and mother Mst.Bashiran Bibi, beside, sending his brother Sabir Ali reeling to the ground seriously wounded. The alleged occurrence took place inside the house of the complainant. There can hardly be a worse example of gruesomeness and brutality, as shown by the petitioner and his armed co-accused at the crucial hour. Three postmortem examination reports and the medico-legal report of the injured witness, all are in line with the story of the FIR. The eye-witnesses still support the prosecution case. He remained an absconder for about seven months and he was proceeded against under section 87, Cr.P.C. on 7.12.2015 and under section 512, Cr.P.C. on 16.12.2015.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner was declared innocent by the investigating officer during the course of investigation, as he found him present in the baithak of one Ehtesham Butt at the relevant time of the occurrence. Let us look, though tentatively, at the plausibility of the said opinion. Initially, he being on ad interim pre-arrest bail joined investigation on 29.9.2015 and said nothing about his plea of alibi to the investigating officer then. After dismissal of his bail-plea, he ran away and lived in abscondence for about seven months before being arrested by the police on 15.4.2016. In his first version, he did not press his plea of alibi, but he reminded the investigating officer of being a police constable, who occasionally raided narcotic-den of the complainant party, due to which they turned hostile against him. The opinion of the investigating officer is more of a gratuitous nature, rather than something reason-based. Even otherwise, the police opinion does not bind the court in any manner. It is the data collected by the investigating officer, which has to be tentatively assessed for resolving question of granting bail to the accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that major heirs of the deceased including his father, widow and Muhammad Akram eye-witness showed no objection before the learned sessions court, in case, the petitioner was granted bail and they all are still inclined to make identical statements before this court, if so directed. The eye-witnesses, four in number, may appear before the learned trial court to render their testimonies during the course of the trial. The petitioner's learned counsel admitted that Akhtar Ali deceased was survived by some minor heirs as well. It would again be the learned trial court to record statements of the major heirs and safeguard the interest of minors, if at all the offence was compounded by them. An incomplete list of the heirs and their equally incomplete statements as regards the compromise may be of no avail to the petitioner at this stage. There are two other deceased as well and their legal heirs are equally relevant for rendering it a case, fully compounded. None of them has come forward to give a signal thereto. The offence against the petitioner entails capital punishment.

4. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept this application, which is accordingly dismissed. WA/N-14/L Bail refused.