2007 PLP 2805 (YLR)

SH. HAKIM ALI, J.

Through this single order, I intend to dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No.426-B-2006/ BWP (Muhammad Iqbal versus The State and another) also along with the instant criminal miscellaneous as both these petitions have arisen from one and the same F.I.R. No.207/2005, dated 18-7-2005, registered with Police Station Noshehra. Jadid, Tehsil Ahmadpur East, District Bahawalpur, under sections 302, 148, 149, 337-A(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)(v) of the P.P C.

2. To shorten the facts, allegations contained in the F.I.R. against Shada, Mukhtar and Muhammad Iqbal, petitioners are that they had inflicted Soti blows to Muhammad Ajmal deceased, while Mushtaq Ahmad, Muhammad Ajmal and Qadir Bux had hit the deceased with sharp-edged weapons of Kassi and hatchets blows.

3. The petitioners were arrested on 28-8-2005. They applied for grant of bail which was declined to them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmadpur East on 10-3-2006.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submit that there is no specific allegation contained in the F.I.R. that the petitioners had inflicted Doti blows on such and such parts of body of time deceased. Moreover, the doctor has not reported any such injuries' to be the cause of death of the deceased. Only abrasions were noted and those were even not found to be the cause of death of the deceased. It has also been argued by the learned counsel that large number of persons were involved by the informant to rope in innocent persons to the extent of twenty five in numbers, out of which fifteen persons were declared innocent by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, the worth and truthfulness of the story of F.I.R. has become doubtful. It has also been argued by the learned counsel that no motive was alleged against the petitioners to inflict Soti blows to Muhammad Ajmal deceased. The cause of death as reported by the doctor was not the alleged abrasion injuries which were allegedly attributed to the petitioners. No material progress has been made in the trial of the case although the petitioners were arrested on 28-8-2005. No common intention allegation for causing murder of deceased against the petitioners is evident even from the narration of the F.I.R. Therefore, the case of the petitioners needs further probe and the petitioners may be allowed post-arrest bail in the case.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that an the persons had stormed to the place of occurrence, which was near to the place of residence of Muhammad Ajmal deceased. They had arrived at that place with common intention to cause the murder of Muhammad Ajmal deceased. Muhammad Akbar, informant and the other ladies eye-witnesses, were also injured by the accused. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for the grant of bail. Learned State counsel submits that present petitioners have been found guilty during the investigation. Therefore, they are not entitled for the grant of bail. It has been admitted by the learned State counsel that no progress in the case has been made nor any witness has been examined. In reply to the arguments, learned counsel for the accused petitioners submit that injuries allegedly caused to informant and the ladies were never ascribed to the petitioners. Therefore, the arguments of the learned counsel for the informant cannot be applied to the case of the petitioners.

6. After considering the arguments of all the learned counsel and from the perusal of the record, I have found that accusation contained in the F.I.R. against the petitioners is that they had inflicted Soti blows to Muhammad Ajmal deceased, while the post mortem report prepared by the doctor had noted and entered the cause of death to be the injuries as contained at serial Nos.2 and 4(a), which were shown to have allegedly been caused through sharp-edged weapons. There being no specific attribution as regards the infliction of Soti blows by each accused on any particular part of the body of the deceased, and the petitioners being behind the bars since] 28-8-2005 and the progress of the trial having not been made, all these facts and circumstances entitle the petitioners to the grant of bail at least uptill the decision of their guilt by the learned trial Court. The alleged guilt of accused requires further inquiry from the learned trial Court through eliciting of evidence, and through trial of the case. Petitioners cannot be allowed to be rotten in jail for an indefinite period without material progress in the case. Therefore, I allow both these petitions and admit the petitioners to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (One hundred thousand rupees) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. N.H.Q./S-17/L Bail allowed.