1991 P Cr (PLP)

Zafar Pasha Chaudhry for the Complainant. Sh. Afzaal Hussain for the State. The petitioner is an accused, alongwith five others, of offences under section 302/148/149/109, P.P.C. vide F.I.R. No.405/89 dated 16-9-1989, registered at Police Station Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura.

2. According to the F.I.R., is brief, the petitioner alongwith his co-accused intercepted Noor Muhammad deceased, while he was on his way to his fields, and that as the result of the firing of the accused, all armed with fire-arms, the deceased was killed. The motive is stated to be a case registered against the petitioner under section 307/148/149, P.P.C. and furthermore, that the deceased's application for Lambardari was accepted, whereas the application for Lambardari of the father of the petitioner had been rejected, and that, therefore, the accused bore a grudge against the deceased. It is further submitted that the murder was at the instigation of Muhammad Khan accused.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended for his bail and submitted that the veracity of the F.I.R. has been called in question as the majority of the co-accused i.e. four in numbers, had been declared innocent. Further submitted that the fatal injuries are not attributed to the present petitioner, and that the only injury specifically attributed to the petitioner is on the non-vital part of the body and it has not been declared grievous. Further submitted that, in view of the contentions stated above, the case of the petitioner falls within the clause 2, subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. In this respect, further submitted, that the petitioner is neither a previous convict nor a hardened criminal, and that he has been behind the bars for the last 18 months, and that the report of the latest investigation of the case by the C.I.A. has just been submitted to the I.-G. for his approval, and that there is no likelihood of the trial commencing in the near future.

3. To support his contentions, placed reliance upon Meeran Bux v. The State and another P L D 1989 SC 347 wherein, the cancellation of the bail was declined by the Honourable Supreme Court and it was held that the bail was made out under the facts and circumstances of the case, as the accused concerned was not attributed the fatal injury, and as the injury attributed to him was simple and on non-vital part of the body. Further reliance was placed on Muhammad Nazir v. The State 1984 S C M R 206 and Sultan Ahmad v. Manzoor Ahmad and others 1986 P Cr. L J 3016 to support the same contention.

4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.A., submitted that the investigation by him has been completed and the same has been submitted to the I.-G. for his approval just few days back.

5. The learned counsel for the State and the complainant opposed the present bail petition on the ground that the petitioner was held to be guilty by the successive investigations, and that he had participated in the occurrence and caused a fire-arm injury to the deceased. However, they had to concede that the injury attributed is not grievous and is on non-vital part of the body and that the fatal injury is not attributed to the petitioner.

6. In view of what has been stated above, as the petitioner is not attributed the fatal injury, and as the injury attributed to him is on the non-vital part of the body of the deceased, and as he has been in custody for the last 18 months and as there is no likelihood of the trial commencing in near future, therefore, placing reliance on the authorities cited on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner is hereby allowed bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees Fifty thousand only), with two sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the A.C./Duty Magistrate, Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura. H.B.T./J-125/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.