1985 P Cr (PLP)

Muhammad Naeem for the State. Talib H. Rizvi for the Complainant. Ghulam Mustafa petitioner has moved this petition for bail in a case registered against him and another under section 302/109, P.P.C.

2. The prosecution version is that on 26th March, 1983 the petitioner Went to the house of police constable Nazir Ahmad deceased situate in Civil Line, Faisalabad where his brother Maqbool Ahmad complainant, Munir Ahmad and Muhammad Ali were also present. Nazir Ahmad accompanied the petitioner on his request but did not return. On 29‑3‑1983 Munir Ahmad P.W. met the petitioner and enquired about Nazir Ahmad. The petitioner told him that after seeing Nazir Ahmad he had gone to his village and that he should contact his relatives. Nazir Ahmad deceased and the petitioner were on friendly terms over which the relatives of the petitioner were unhappy. A Punchayat was convened in which co‑accused Manzoor Ahmad, maternal‑uncle of the petitioner, had thrown a challenge that Nazir Ahmad would be finished as he was having illicit relations with the petitioner.

3. During the investigation the petitioner led to the recovery of blood‑stained hatchet on 6‑4‑1983 and also pointed out a place in the Mansoorabad canal from where a bag containing upper part of the body was recovered. Another bag containing the remaining part was recovered from a Rajba. According to the post‑mortem report there was an injury on the neck and the deceased had died due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from the said injury which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had no motive against the deceased and the evidence collected by the investigating agency does not in any way connect him with the commission of crime. It is further submitted that at the time of occurrence he was below 16 years, therefore, he is entitled to the concession of bail. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Anwar v. The State 1983 S C M R 1001. The learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand, contends that the evidence of last seen coupled with the recoveries of blood‑stained hatchet and the dead body at the instance of the petitioner prima facie connects him with offence. The learned State counsel has also opposed the prayer for bail.

5. I have gone through the relevant material. There is no direct evidence of the murder and the case of the prosecution rests on the evidence of last seen and recoveries referred to above. In the F.I.R. the petitioner is not shown to have any motive against the deceased. it is rather stated therein that the petitioner and the deceased had friendly relations. A copy of the birth entry of the petitioner has been placed on the file which shows his date of birth as 21‑8‑1967. Even according to the police record he was about 16 years at the time of his arrest. In the circumstances, I admit him to bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/ Duty, Magistrate, Faisalabad. H.A.K Bail granted