1987 PLP 1690(2) (MLD)

Ishfaq Ahmad Bokhari for the State. Ghulam Rasood Waraich for the Complainant. Muhammad Draiz petitioner, who is an accused in a complaint case under sections 148, 302 and 307/149, P.P.C., has moved this petition for bail.

2. Firstly, a case under sections 302 and 307, P.P. C. was registered vide F.I.R. No.101 of 17-5-1985 at Police Station Karana, District Sargodha, through Muhammad Ijaz, wherein he alleged that on the said day when he reached his house at 8 a.m. he found co-accused Muhammad Naseer, armed with a Khanjar, hurling abuses on his mother. Within his view he gave Khanjar blows on the various parts of her body. When his brother Riaz and sister Mst. Rauf Bibi tried to rescue her, the aforesaid accused gave Khanjar blows to them as well. He stepped forward to rescue them upon which Nasee^ accused threatened him with Khanjar and told him that he would also meet the same fate. Thereafter, he left the spot taking the Khanjar with him. The motive, as stated in the F.I.R. was that 13/14 years prior to the occurrence Awais, maternal-uncle of Naseer accused, was murdered for which Mst. Qasim Jan deceased, mother of Ijaz complainant, was prosecuted and acquitted. Aforesaid Awais was the father of Draiz petitioner and step-brother of the complainant. On 13-6-1985 Mst. Rauf Bibi (sister of Ijaz complainant;, filed a complaint under sections 148, 302 and 307/149, P.P.C. in respect of the same occurrence against aforesaid Naseer and four others, namely Muhammad Draiz petitioner, Muhammad Amir, Muhammad Inayat and Muhammad Munir wherein she repeated the same story and further averred that Muhammad Amir, Inayat, Munir and Draiz petitioner were also present outside the main gate of their house. Muhammad Amir, Inayat and Munir were armed with rifles; on coming out of the, house, Naseer accused told them that Mst. Qasim Jan had been done away with; Munir accused asked him about the fate of Riaz and he told him that he too would not survive Then all the accused ran way from there. In the complaint it was alleged that Ijaz had named all the accused in the F.I.R., but the same were deliberately not recorded by the A.S.I.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R., and even in the complaint no overt act has been attributed to him and his case is definitely on better footing, than that of Muhammad Amir, Munir and Inayat who have already; been released on bail. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioner remained absconder, therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of bail. The learned State counsel does not oppose the prayer for bail, but states that heavy surety should be demanded from him.

4. I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. First informant Ijaz is son of the deceased and real brother of the injured P.Ws. He claims to be an eye-witness of the occurrence. In the F.I.R. he named Muhamma Naseer as the sole accused. In the complaint Muhammad Amir, Inayat, Munir and Draiz petitioner are also named as accused. Out of the first mentioned three were stated to be armed with rifles while the petitioner was not shown to be armed with any weapon. I, therefore, agree with the learned counsel that the petitioner's case is on better footing than that of aforesaid three co-accused. In the circumstances a case for his enlargement is made out. I, therefore, admit him to bail in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. M. Y.H./M-227/L Bail granted