1990 P Cr (PLP)

M. Anwar Sipra for Petitioners. Irshad Ahmad for the State. This is an application filed by three persons, namely, Ahmad Yar; Muhammad Yar and Noor Hasan for grant of bail in a case registered against them and others vide F.I.R. No.512 dated 25-10-1988 for offences under section 302/307/148/149, P.P.C. at Police Station Tandlianwala, Tehsil and District Faisalabad.

2. After hearing this petition I had verbally announced the order allowing bail to the petitioners. However, while dictating-the order, I felt that some facts needed clarification and fixed the petition for rehearing on 2-9-1989. On that date, the learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for time for placing some other documents An the record. He filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.1268/M of 1989 for placing the documents on the record which was allowed on 4-9-1989 and the main petition was reheard on the said date.

3. According to the F.1.R., the complainant party was in possession of the land bearing Square No.24 and the petitioners alongwith 12 others attacked to dispossess them. The petitioners were armed with guns and fired towards the complainant party resulting m injuries to 9 persons, namely, Iqbal, Amir, Ali Gauhar, Jafar, Bashir, Bashir Sani, Oasim. Hamid and Balya. The petitioners' co accused Iqbal fired at Mokha who was fatally wounded and died shortly thereafter. Another F.I.R. No.513 was also registered against the complainant party in the present case on the statement of Mansha son of Taja. According to this F.I.R., the petitioners and their co-accused had come armed to re-occupy the disputed land. As a result of firing by Iqbal alias Bala, Mokha was injured and then the opposite-party fired back as a result of which Taja father of the complainant Mansha was injured and later on died. Another person named Rehma was also injured. Muhammad Mansha complainant felt dissatisfied with the contents of F.I.R. No.513 and filed Writ Petition No.1751 of 1989 which is pending in this Court. He has asserted in his petition that he and his uncle Nabi Bakhsh were in possession of the disputed land and had constructed their residential Dharis and cattle sheds thereon. He further alleged that Manzoor alongwith others tried to forcibly occupy the land which resulted in a free fight between the parties. He firmly stated that he was still in possession of land.

4. There are two versions about the same occurrence. Admittedly the dispute had arisen as a result of the possession over the disputed land. The land was originally leased out to Nabi Bakhsh father of Ahmad Yar and Muhammad Yar petitioners and he was in cultivating possession of the same. Subsequently, Manzoor son of Sadiq managed to get the land on lease and tried to obtain its possession forcibly whereupon Nabi Bakhsh filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining Noor and Manzoor sons of Sadiq from dispossessing him forcibly. The Civil Court passed an order for a status quo on 19-9-1988. Nabi Bakhsh had also filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner challenging the allotment of the disputed land in the name of Manzoor Ahmad. A stay order was passed by the Additional Commissioner on 19-9-1988. There is a general allegation against the petitioners that they had fired towards the complainant party resulting in injuries to nine persons. The question as to whether the P.Ws. were injured as a result of firing by all the three petitioners and that as to who was in occupation of the land at the relevant time, requires further probe and investigation. The counter-version embodied in the Writ Petition No.1751 of 1989 filed by Muhammad Mansha also deserves serious consideration. No doubt the Roznamcha Waqiati shows that possession of the land-was delivered to Manzoor Ahmad on 6-10-1988. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Roznamcha Waqiati merely contained paper proceedings and on the spot Nabi Bakhsh, father of petitioners 1 and 2 and Mansha were in possession of the land at the time of the occurrence and that they are still in possession of the same. It is not denied that the crops standing on the land were sown by Nabi Bakhsh and that he had gone to the Civil Court to protect his possession. Subsequently, he also challenged the auction/allotments of the land in favour of Nanzoor Ahmad. Hence the possibility that he physically remained in possession of land on the strength of the stay order issued by the Civil Court and then by the Additional Commissioner, cannot be ruled out. In the tragic incident, on the petitioners' side, Taja father of Muhammad Mansha lost his life and Rehma was injured. Hence the argument that the petitioners had acted in the exercise of defence of their person and property can be legitimately raised. I refrain from giving any definite finding on this point because the matter is being investigated by the police. In the counter-case all the accused persons have been allowed bail. The case being one of two versions and there being some material to show that the petitioners had, prima facie, acted in exercise of defence of their person and property, I accept this petition and allow bail, to the petitioners, subject to their furnishing bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000 (Rs. fifty thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Samundri. SA./A-898/1, Bail allowed: