1981 P Cr (PLP)

S. 497-Bail-First Information Report lodged with delay--No injuries attributed, to accused-Accused arrested after a long time-Parties on inimical terms

No weapon recovered carom accused

Two out of three prosecution witnesses interested and related to deceased-Case of accused petitioner for sharing common intention with main accused having to be determined by trial Court, case, till then, held, a case for further inquiry entitling accused to bail

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34. Basharat Hussain v. Ghulam Hussain 1978 S C M R 357; Muhammad Iqbal v. State 1979 P Cr. L J Note 67 at p. 44; Shahid Iqbal v. State 1976 P Cr. L. J 758 and Nazir v. State 1978 S C. M R 285 ref. Ghulam Qadir Jatoi for Applicants. Muhammad Ibrahim Memon, A. A.-G. for the State. In this application bail is urged on behalf of two accused persons, namely, Bakht Ali and Mohammad Azim. The learned counsel for the applicants has stated that be does not press the bail plea in respect of Muhammad Azim against whom it is alleged that he has caused fatal injuries to the deceased. Bail plea is urged only in respect of accused Bakht Ali against whom the case of the prosecution is that he had caught hold of deceased to facilitate attack by co-accused Mohammad Azim with a dagger. There are three eye-witnesses who are named in the F. I. R. Incident is stated to have taken place in the Barrow Pits of Takar Pahari at about 10-00 a.m. on 11th April, 1980. The report of the incident is said to have been lodged on 12th April, 1980 at 10-00 a.m. after delay of about twelve hours when the distance between the Police Station and the spot is stated to be three miles. The learned A.A.-G. opposes the bail plea for the treason that it is the case of prosecution as stated in the F. I. R. that the deceased was taken away by the two accused persons including the applicant from a hotel and this was seen by the three eye-witnesses named in F. I. R. who later on also witnessed the incident. The learned A. A.-G. has further contended that in these circumstances the applicant is not entitled to bail and in support of his contention he has cited 1981 S C M R

820. In the case cited bail granted to the accused was cancelled by the High Court on the ground that accused who was granted bail and bad grappled with the deceased when another co-accused caused stab injuries but he had been arrested at the spot and was handed over to the Police. The Supreme Court did not interfere with the cancellation of bail in such circumstances. On the other hand the learned counsel for the applicant has argued that no injuries in the instant case have been attributed to the applicant against whom it is alleged by the prosecution that he caught hold of the deceased to facilitate the attack and further that there is delay in the filing of F. I. R., applicant was arrested after a long time. No recovery was made from him, there is a background of enmity between the parties, identification at the time of the incident is alleged to be in the light of torch and two out of three witnesses named in F. I. R. are interested and related to the deceased. On the basis of this evidence it is urged that the case against the applicant for sharing common intention with the main accused under section 34, P. P. C. is to be determined by the trial Court after the evidence is produced and evaluated, still then it is the case for further inquiry as such the applicant entitled to bail, In support of his contention the learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon 1978 S C M R 357, 1979 P Cr. L J Note 67 at p, 44, 197 P Cr. L J 758 and 1978 S C M R

285. In these circumstances of the vase, I admit applicant Bakht Ali to bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000 with one surety and P. R. in like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Ball granted.