1997 P Cr (PLP)

Malik Rab Nawaz Noon for Petitioner. Sardar Muhammad Ishaque for the Complainant. Raja Muhammad Ayub Kiani for the State. A case under section 302/324/34, P. P. C. was registered against the petitioner and others vide F.I.R. No.371, dated 25-9-1996 at Police Station Waris Khan, Rawalpindi on the ground that in furtherance of common intention, the petitioner and his co-accused committed the murder of Bahadur ' Ali on 25-9-1996 at about 10-45 a.m. The F.I.R. was lodged by the father of the deceased namely Haji Mahmood Akhtar on the same day at about 11-50 a. m.

2. According to the F.I.R., the petitioner had caught hold of the deceased and had given him kick and fist blows while his co-accused Shaukat Ali and Azmat gave Chhuri blows to him. 2-A. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Chhuri blows to the deceased are attributed to the co-accused who are sons of the petitioner; that a wider net is thrown to implicate the petitioner falsely in this case; that no motive existed against the petitioner; that post-mortem report did not reveal that any kick or fist blow was given to the deceased; and that in view of above facts, it has become a case of further enquiry. The bail was accordingly prayed for the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant contended that the petitioner was named in the F. I. R. and a specific role has been attributed to him; that the F.I.R. was promptly lodged; that the occurrence was committed in broad daylight and hence, there was no doubt regarding the participation of the petitioner. In addition to that, it was contended that there was no enmity between the parties for the false implication of the petitioner in the case. Lastly, it was submitted that the deceased had given statement to the Investigating Officer before his death in which he .had nominated the petitioner as one of his killers. It was, therefore, Submitted that the petitioner had no case for bail on merit.

4. I have considered the above submissions and find that the petitioner is named in the promptly lodged F.I.R. and a specific role is attributed to him. The prosecution has relied upon the eye-witnesses who have also implicated the petitioner in the occurrence, which is further supported by the alleged dying declaration made by the deceased before his expire. The deeper appreciation about the merits of the case cannot be undertaken at this stage. The evidence so far collected by the prosecution prima facie links the petitioner with the murder' of the deceased and his vicarious liability alongwith his co-accused cannot be overlooked at the present stage of case. Needless to say that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause being punishable with death or imprisonment for, life. There is no extenuating circumstance, the petition being meritless is dismissed. N.H.Q./M-322/L Bail refused.