2015 PLP 1954 (YLR)

SYED MUHAMMAD KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, J.

Ansar Ijaz petitioner seeks his release on bail in case FIR No.308, dated 12-7-2011 registered against him under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, 109, 311, P.P.C. with Police Station Narang, District Sheikhupura.

2. As per contents of the FIR, the brother of son-in-law of the petitioner namely Aftab son of Aslam was murdered and case FIR No.417/2009 was registered at the same police station. In that case, through supplementary statement, the petitioner Ansar Ijaz etc. were nominated for the murder. On the fateful day, the complainant party was going to the office of Superintendent Police (Investigation), Sheikhupura while riding on two different cars who had summoned them for investigations. The car of the complainant was following another car in which Muhammad Shafqat son in law of the complainant, Muhammad Aslam his father and Muhammad Rizwan were sitting. The above said cars were intercepted by the assailants while armed with Kalashnikov and pistol, and on seeing the car of Shafqat deceased started indiscriminate firing killing all three inmates. Later on, the assailants while following the complainant party entered into the house of the deceased Shafqat where they killed Mst. Manzoor Bibi mother of late Shafqat. The petitioner was shown to be armed with pistol .30 bore.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that allegation of indiscriminate firing has been levelled against all the assailants therefore, it is not possible to determine at this stage as to whose fire proved fatal for the life of the deceased persons. He maintained that the petitioner has lost his right hand whereas his left hand is deformed unable to hold anything thus, attribution of firing to petitioner with pistol .30 bore is unacceptable. Added more that neither any empty of pistol .30 bore was recovered from the spot nor any pistol was recovered at the instance of the petitioner. Argued that the complainant of the case Muhammad Yousaf had also executed an affidavit exonerating the petitioner and his co-accused Amjad and Asghar. Iftikhar Ahmad co-accused was also given clean chit who was admitted to bail by this court on 29-3-2012 on the basis of affidavit sworn by the complainant of the case.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the son of the deceased Shafqat submitted that the complainant Muhammad Yousaf has connived with the accused party, who firstly himself had lodged the FIR and thereafter exonerated the assailants by executing affidavits and that on the complaint of his client he (Yousaf) has also been nominated as accused of murder of Shafqat Mehmood etc. Commenting upon the disability of the petitioner and firing at the deceased persons, he has referred to certain photographs in which the petitioner is having a Kalashnikov at his shoulder and further submitted that on the record there is a C.D. showing that the petitioner was firing with Kalashnikov in a marriage function. According to the learned counsel the petitioner is not a disabled person and is sufficiently able to hold firearm.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant in contradiction with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the son of the deceased has submitted that the complainant of the case has sworn an affidavit wherein he has exonerated petitioner being not an accused of the case.

6. Parties heard. Record perused.

7. So far as the disability of the petitioner is concerned, it is confirmed by the Medical Board of DHQ Hospital, District Sheikhupura by reporting on 22-11-2012 that the right hand of the petitioner is totally amputated while the left hand is deformed and functioning poorly. It is further submitted that there was mal-united/deformed/left leg/left ankle. This medical report negates the assertion of the counsel appearing on behalf of the son of the deceased. Even the photographs shown by the learned counsel are also not of any help to him for the reason that in none of those photographs the petitioner was shown to be firing. Merely having a firearm at the shoulder does not indicate that the armed person has also capacity of firing. About the C.D., collected by the police through a recovery memo, when this Court asked to the Investigating Officer, whether he had viewed this C.D., he answered in negative. In this view of the matter, the petitioner appears to be a disabled and infirm person, who probably is unable to fire with any weapon. On merits, general allegation of firing has levelled against all the nominated persons without describing the injuries caused by them. The allegation of firing with pistol .30 bore has been levelled against the petitioner but neither any crime empty of .30 bore pistol was collected from the spot nor any such like weapon could be recovered at the instance of the petitioner. Moreover, the complainant of the case has also given a clean chit to the petitioner by filing an affidavit which document is still being owned by him. The afore-noted facts thus clearly bring the case of the petitioner within the ambit of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. entitling him for grant of bail.

8. In view of above, this petition is allowed and Ansar Ijaz petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court. MH/A-11/L Bail allowed.