2000 P Cr (PLP)

Allah Din complainant‑petitioner got recorded F.I.R. No.3, dated 4‑1‑1998 at Police Station Raja Jang, District Kasur under section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code wherein he got incorporated that he was not blessed with a male issue and that Mst. Umra Bibi and Mst. Asmat Bibi took birth from his wife Mst. Allah Rakhi deceased of this case. He expressed that he transferred his two acres of land in the name of his daughters. His nephew Allah Rakha respondent‑accused surprised him in a field on 4‑1‑1998 at 1‑30 p.m. where his wife Mst. Allah Rakhi and his daughters Mst. Umra Bibi and Mst. Asmat Bibi were cutting the fodder. Suba co‑accused son of Allah Rakha accused accompanied him. Allah Rakha raised Lalkara and directed his son Suba to teach a lesson to him for alienating the property in the names of his daughters. On that Suba brought out carbine from his Chaddar and fired twice at them which hit his wife Mst. Allah Rakhi on her right arm and left thigh. She fell down. Amanat Ali and Alamdar Shah P.Ws. had arrived who saw the occurrence. Both Allah Rakha respondent‑accused and his co‑accused Suba made good their escape. Motive for the occurrence is that Suba desired to inherit his property which the complainant had transferred in the names of his daughters. Mst. Allah Rakhi expired.

2. Allah Rakha respondent‑accused was arrested and was admitted to bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the ground that the proverbial Lalkara is attributed to him and that in the investigation he has been declared as a suspect which fact has made the case of the prosecution against him that of a further enquiry.

3. The complainant has filed this petition for the cancellation of bail allowed to Allah Rakha respondent‑accused. Initially the respondent got adjournment to engage a learned Advocate out on the last date of hearing and even today he expressed his inability to get the services of some learned counsel.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Allah Rakha respondent‑accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Suba co‑accused is the son of Allah Rakha accused and a commanding Lalkara made by father against whom there was the direct motive was obeyed by the co -accused and that it was not a case of proverbial Lalkara. He continued that the respondent‑accused was declared as innocent during the Punchayat which was not attended by the complainant party and that the fact that he was treated as the suspect during the investigation has no legal force. Allah Rakha accused expressed that his son arrived from some different village and that he was not aware about the facts of the occurrence as he was not present at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence. The learned State Counsel did not express anything in the matter. I am of the view that it is not a case of proverbial Lalkara. Allah Din complainant was not blessed with son who has two daughters in whose favour he transferred his property which was the direct cause of annoyance for his nephew Allah Rakha respondent‑accused. The said direct motive has made out that he was in a commanding position to issue the commanding Lalkaxa to his son Suba co‑accused. The aforesaid aspect of the matter, keeping in view the statements of the P.Ws. and the medical evidence, has made me to express that Allah Rakha accused was not entitled to the discretion of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It shall not be out of place to express that the settlement of disputes of criminal nature through Punchayat (meeting of village elders) during the police investigation finds no mention in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The investigation is to be conducted to collect the evidence to be produced during the trial and the working of the investigation officers has to revolve around the known cannons of law/rules which have to guide them. In the instant matter the complainant did not participate in the proceedings held by the Punchayat. As such the aforesaid opinion of the Investigating Officer in favour of Allah Rakha accused is liable to be ignored. The aforesaid type of working of the Police Officers during the investigation is based on conjectural hypothesis which cannot be approved by giving the weight at this stage. The prosecution has collected the evidence of motive, ocular account and the medical evidence which have prima facie connected Allah Rakha accused with the occurrence who in the circumstances was not entitled to be admitted to bail.

5. I, therefore, accept this application, set aside the impugned order, dated 22‑7‑1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and cancel the bail allowed to Allah Rakha respondent‑accused.

6. Allah Rakha accused‑respondent is present in Court who has been put under the custody of Nazir Ahmad Sub‑Inspector Police Station Raja Jang, District Kasur for his detention in the judicial lock District Jail, Kasur who shall be produced before the Illaqa Magistrate on 4‑2‑1999 .and on every date to be fined thereafter. N.H.Q./A‑37/L Bail cancelled.