1994 PLP 692 (SCMR)

SALEEM AKHTAR, J.‑‑‑The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the order of the learned Judge in Chambers whereby their bail application was dismissed.

2. One Muhammad Yousuf lodged F.I.R. against the petitioners and their co‑accused under sections 302, 452, 148 and 149, P.P.C. on 15‑10‑1992 alleging that on the same day when he came back in the evening he was informed by his wife that she and his daughter were washing clothes on the canal, one Sheri and Amjad tried to cut indecent jokes and grappled with them. On their cries Muhammad Nawaz, his son‑in‑law was attracted who gave Sota blows to them. In the evening on the same day at 7‑15 while the complainant along with Muhammad Nawaz, Gulzar, his wife and daughters Kausar Perveen, Mumtaz and Nusrat Perveen were present inside the house, they heard knocks at the door. His wife and Muhammad Nawaz went to the door when Muhammad Gulzar said that Asadullah Sindhu, Councillor and Haji Muhammad Nawaz have called them for a compromise. He asked them to open the door. As soon as the door was opened, Sheri son of Haji Muhammad Nawaz armed with knife, Muhammad Gulzar, Tariq, Azam, Ramzan, Javed,. Muhammad Akbar, Arshad, Qaisar, Iqbal, Shahbaz, Kaka, Shaukat, Shanu Sheikh and Sheri son of Muhammad Amir Baluch armed with Dandas entered the house. Sheri gave a Lalkara to Muhammad Nawaz and started hitting him who tried to defend himself by hitting them. The complainant and Gulzar, his son‑in‑law, caught hold of Nawaz and took him inside the room and bolted the door. The accused broke open the door. Sher, Sindhu, Kaka Qasai, Tariq and Jani Sindhu entered the room, caught hold of Nawaz and dragged him outside. Sheri hit Muhammad Nawaz with knife on his left hand and stomach and injured him. Others injured complainant's wife and daughter Kausar Perveen with Dandas and kicks. Muhammad Nawaz died.

3. The learned counsel repeated the same arguments which were raised before the learned Judge in Chambers; the absence of motive and the assigning of role to the accused was highlighted by the learned counsel. The learned Judge in the impugned order observed as follows:‑‑ "I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the police file, Petitioner alongwith co‑accused entered into the house of the first informant where Muhammad Nawaz was done to death. Role ascribed to the petitioners was that they broke open the door from where Muhammad Nawaz was dragged out and done to death. I have noticed that case of Azam petitioner No.l is however on a different footing. In the FIR he was not one of the co‑accused who broke open the door or dragged him out. Rest of the petitioners, namely, Tariq and Ramzan were mentioned as one of the accused who broke open the door. The only role ascribed to the petitioner is that he was present at the spot but there is nothing in the FIR to indicate that he entered the house of the first informant. In these circumstances, Azam petitioner is allowed bail provided he furnishes security in the sum of Rs.30,000 (Rupees thirty thousand only) with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Sargodha. As far Tariq and Ramzan petitioners are concerned, they trespassed into the house of the complainant where Muhammad Nawaz was done to death. They facilitated in the murder of Nawaz. No case for bail is made out. Petition qua Tariq and Ramzan petitioners fails which is dismissed." As is obvious from the F.I.R. and the allegations made by the eye‑witnesses that Tariq and Ramzan have been accused of breaking open the door, they had trespassed into the house of the deceased and ultimately Muhammad Nawaz was killed. In the face of these circumstances and allegations, discretion was properly exercised and requires no interference. Leave is refused. N.H.Q/M‑1904/S ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused.