2012 PLP 723 (MLD)

MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.

Applicants are booked in Crime No.212 of 2010 of Police Station Khipro under sections 302, 506(2), 504 and 34, P.P.C. In the first place, applicants applied for bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sanghar, who dismissed the bail application per order dated 3-5-2011. Against the aforesaid order, present bail application has been filed.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants says that he will not press the bail application of applicant No.1 Ahsan and applicant No.2 Dhingano, but will press bail application only applicant No.3 Waseem Gul and requests that direction be issued to the trial Court for early disposal of the case. Accordingly, bail application of applicants Nos.1 and 2 is dismissed as not pressed.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant No.3 Waseem Gul submits that the name of Waseem Gul does not appear in the F.I.R. however, he was subsequently implicated in this case and no recovery whatsoever has been effected from him nor any overact was attributed to him nor any identification parade till date has been conducted. Learned counsel says that the case of the applicant Waseem Gul requires further inquiry and he may be admitted to bail.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to Waseem Gul and has submitted that he was present at the scene of the crime and his presence one person was murdered, he is fully connected with the commission of offence and he may not be enlarged on bail. He has placed reliance upon cases of SHAUKAT ILLAHI v. STATE (2010 SCMR 966), MUDASSAR ALTAF v. STATE (2010 SCMR 1861), Haji INAYAT-UL-HAQ v. STATE (1988 SCMR 1743), IQBAL-U-REHMAN v. STATE (PLD 1974 SC 83), SARDAR MUNIR AHMED DOGAR v. STATE (PLD 2004 SC 822), ASSAMATULLAH KHAN v. STATE PLD 1988 SC 621 and NAJEEB GUL v. STATE (1989 SCMR 899).

5. Learned D.P.G. says that no doubt name of the applicant Waseem Gul does not appear in the F.I.R., but he was present at the time of occurrence armed with weapon however, no overact has been attributed to him except he is to be punished under section 34, P.P.C.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

7. From the perusal of the record, it appears that applicant Waseem Gul was present at the scene armed with weapon, but no overacts has been attributed to him. The main allegations in the F.I.R. are against Wasil, Ahsan and Dhingano, who have committed the murder, but except the role of presence with arm, no other role has been attributed to the present applicant. It is yet to be decided at the trial that the provision of section 34, P.P.C. would be attracted in the circumstances of the case or not. In the circumstances, applicant Waseem Gul is admitted to bail, on his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000 (Rupees one hundred thousand) with PR bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. The laws cited by learned counsel for the complainant are distinguishable on facts and circumstances of this case.

8. Since this matter pertains to year 2010, learned trial Court is directed to proceed with the matter expeditiously and dispose of the case within a period of four months after receipt of this order under intimation to this court. He is also directed to submit monthly progress report through Additional Registrar of this Court. If the applicant, who has been granted bail today, avoids proceeding or does not cooperate with the learned trial Court, the complainant side shall be free to move application for cancellation of bail before the learned trial Court. H.B.T./A-151/K Bail granted.