2017 PLP 870 (MLD)

SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.

The allegation against the petitioner, Sher Muhammad, as per contents of FIR No.213/I5, dated 10.9.2015, under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, P.P.C., registered at police station Saddar Chunian (Kasur) is, that he being armed with hatchet, joined by his armed co-accused, attacked the complainant-party at 4.00 p.m. on 10.9.2015 and sent five persons, Muhammad Bilal, Muhammad Zahid, Shabbir Ahmad, Mst. Nusrat Bibi and Muhammad Faisal reeling to the ground in injured condition; Muhammad Bilal, the son of the complainant succumbed to the injuries at the spot. Specific attribution to the petitioner is that he and his co-accused Munawar firstly overpowered Muhammad Bilal (deceased), when Naveed Ahmad co-accused banged his hatchet onto his head, and secondly, he dealt a hatchet blow to the forehead of Shabbir Ahmad; the motive behind the occurrence was that Naveed Ahmad co- accused attempted to commit zina, with Mst. Kiran, a paternal niece of the complainant at about 4.00 p.m., the same day, who somehow saved herself and brought this fact into the knowledge of her parents, whereon her mother went to the house of Naveed Ahmad to lodge a complaint and admonish him, who turned furious and he, joined by his co-accused, including the petitioner, committed the crime.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that two co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Muhammad Anwar and Manzoor Ahmad have already been granted post-arrest bail by this court on 3.6.2016. The petitioner's case assimilated with that of the said co-accused, so far as the allegation of causing bodily injuries to the injured persons is concerned. The only fact that put his case at variance, related to the allegation of overpowering Muhammad Bilal (deceased), when he was under attack of Naveed Ahmad co-accused. It has not been mentioned in the FIR nor in the statements of the witnesses as to the mode, the petitioner and his co-accused had rendered Muhammad Bilal powerless at the crucial hour. Learned counsel for the complainant repeatedly argued that the accused/petitioner and his co-accused took the deceased in Japha and thereby facilitated their co-accused to inflict a fatal blow on his head. It seemed a bit queer and it caused eyebrow-raising, that the deceased was still in the Japha of two persons, including the petitioner, when given a full-blooded blow, that smashed his skull, by Naveed Ahmad co-accused. This particular aspect of the prosecution case and the nature of accusation against the petitioner may better be analyzed by the learned trial court at the time of the trial. Rest are the similitudes between the petitioner and his co-accused, already granted bail. The petitioner allegedly got recovered a hatchet, not blood stained, on 22.11.2015. He is not linked with the motive incident any way. The question of vicarious liability may better be resolved at the appropriate stage of the trial of the accused, Investigation of the case has been finalized and challan under section 173, Cr.P.C. stood submitted, therefore, physical custody of the petitioner was not required for the purpose of investigation.

3. The alleged occurrence took place just in front of the house of the accused. A cross-case was set up by the accused on 2.1.2016 for offences under sections 337-F(v), 337-F(i), 337-A(i), 148, 149, P.P.C., Sher Muhammad (petitioner) being the complainant thereof, but it was recommended for cancellation by the Investigating Officer on 30.1.2016, as District Standing Medical Board, Kasur after reexamining the injuries of Naveed Ahmad, Muhammad Munawar and Sher Muhammad injured, observed that probability of fabrication in respect thereof could not be ruled out. The report of the medical board did not, however, disclose any viable reason as to formulation of the said opinion by it. The fact remained that three of the accused had been injured during the occurrence, whose MLRs are available on the record. There exist sufficient reasons to believe that the petitioner's case called for further probe into her guilt within the scope of section 497(2), Cr.P.C.

4. Therefore, this application is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (five lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court. WA/S-71/L Bail granted.