2001 P Cr (PLP)

The applicant Dur Muhammad is booked for an offence under section 302/34, P.P.C. in Crime No.104 of 2000 Police Station, Pir-jo- Goth. The facts briefly disclosed by the complainant are that deceased Amir Ali was his younger brother. They had relationship with accused Hidayatullah. About one year back wife of Hidayatullah had come to their house after a petty dispute with her husband and remained in their house for a night. She was taken back in the morning. However, Hidyatullah suspected his brother Amir Ali to be on illicit terms with her. Hidayatullah used to say that he would commit murder of Amir Ali. On the day of incident complainant, his brother Amir Ali, cousin Hakim Ali and Fazal went to old Market for selling bananas. Amir Ali was ahead at some distance and when they reached at road leading from Dargah (Sharine) to Market near Hotel Hakeem Safrani, at about 9‑30 a.m., they were waylaid by Hidayatullah armed with country made pistol, Budhal armed with pistol and Dur Muhammad with hatchet. Hidayatullah challenged the deceased, saying that he would not be spared and after saying, so, he fired from his pistol, which hit deceased Amir Ali on his back. The latter fell down on the ground. The accused thereafter made their escape good. The complainant party found that Amir Ali had died due to fire‑arm injuries. The complainant proceeded to police station and lodged the F.I.R. The police after recording the F.I.R. conducted investigation and after completing the same submitted the challan in the Court. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that no overt act has been ascribed to the present applicant. He was allegedly armed with hatchet but the same was not used in the commission of offence. The motive as alleged can only be attributed to accused Hidayatullah. The prosecution witnesses are closely related to the deceased and the case of present applicant requires further enquiry. Mr. Sher Muhammad Shar learned A.A.‑G, has conceded to the bail plea of accused. He states that there is nothing against the applicant on the record to show that he had played an active role in the commission of offence. The case of present accused Dur Muhammad is distinguishable from the accused Hidayatullah and Budhal as both the above‑named accused were armed with pistols but the present applicant was allegedly armed with hatchet. He did not take any active part to the incident. The motive is attributed to accused Hidayatullah. The learned A.A.‑G. has conceded to the bail plea of accused. The complicity of present accused by way of various liability under section 34, P.P.C. is yet to be established at the time of trial51A the case of present applicant under its peculiar facts and circumstances would come out of the prohibition contained under section 497(1), Cr.P.C: and requires further enquiry. The accused Dur Muhammad is granted bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rs. two lacs only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. N.H.Q./D‑10/K Bail granted.