1988 PLP 933 (MLD)

This is a petition for bail on behalf of Farman Ali petitioner, who is involved in a case under section 302/34 of the P.P.C.

2. The case was registered on the statement of Muhammad Javed, wherein he alleged that on 20‑7‑1987 at digarwela he was returning to his village in the company of Muhammad Arshad; when they reached Bhimbar nullah in the area of Pakhowal, they saw three persons sitting under a kikar tree; in the meantime, a rickshaw came from the side of Qadir colony and stopped near them; a person alighted from the rickshaw and the aforesaid three persons surrounded it and then they heard 2/3 fire reports. Within their view the aforesaid four persons pushed the rickshaw in the Bhimbar nullah and ran away towards village Jaura. Three of them were identified as Farooq Riaz, Mumtaz Ali and Farman Ali petitioner. Farooq Riaz and Farman Ali petitioners were armed with .12 bore carbines and Mumtaz Ali with a .12 bore gun. They rushed to the place of occurrence and found Iltaf Hussain (brother of the first informant) lying dead. The motive, as alleged in the F.I.R., was that 13/14 years prior to the present occurrence a cousin of Far man Ali petitioner was murdered, for which Gul Hussain, elder brother of the first informant, was challaned, but was acquitted. Secondly, Iltaf Hussain deceased was a witness against Farooq Riaz accused in a theft case. Farooq Riaz and others asked him not to appear as a witness, but he declined to oblige them.

3. During the investigation Farooq Riaz and mere found innocent and were got discharged. The complainant then filed a private complaint with the same allegations. However, while appearing as a witness in the said complaint case he stated that the three persons sitting under the kikar tree were Mumtaz Ali. Farooq Riaz and Farman Ali petitioners. Farman Ali fired first shot hitting Iltaf Hussain on the back of left shoulder; Mumtaz Ali fired second shot hitting his left thigh and the third fire hit the deceased in the abdomen.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that during investigation Farooq Riaz and Mumtaz Ali were found innocent and were got discharged The versions contained in the F.I.R. and in the statement of Muhammad Javed made ,n the Court on 30‑1‑1988 are at variance, and according to the prosecution the petitioner was armed with a .12 bore carbine, but the injury on the back of shoulder of the deceased, attributed to him, was found to have been caused by a bullet, therefore, the case of the petitioner needs further inquiry. Learned counsel for the complainant and the State, on the other hand, submit that one of the accused namely, Qamar‑uz‑Zaman is still absconding; Farooq Riaz and Mumtaz Ali co‑accused have since been summoned in the complaint case and fatal injury has been attributed to the petitioner, therefore, no round for bail is made out.

5. I have perused the record and carefully considered the submissions made the learned counsel for the parties. In the F.I.R. and in the complaint no injury is specifically attributed to any of the accused persons. However, the first Informant in his statement dated 30‑1‑1988' stated that Farman Ali petitioner fired the first shot hitting the deceased on the back of shoulder, Mumtaz Ali fired the second shot hitting his left thigh while the third shot hit him in the abdomen. It is admitted that Farooq and Mumtaz were found innocent during the investigation and were got discharged. According to the prosecution, the petitioner was armed with a .12 bore carbine. There were four injuries on the dead body out of which injury No.4 was a wound of entry of bullet, 8 c.m. below from left scapular tip. This injury has been attributed to the petitioner. TEA submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner find support from the' material available on the record. I am, therefore, of the view that the case of the petitioner needs further inquiry. In the circumstances, bail cannot be withheld for e he reason that one of the accused is absconding and the other two have been summoned in the complaint case. I, therefore, admit the petitioner to bail in the urn of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C. Gujrat. S.G.D./F‑77/L Bail allowed.