1994 P Cr (PLP)

Sh. Muhammad Rahim for the State. Date of hearing: 17th August, 1993. This is a petition for grant of bail on behalf of Allah Ditta, Aziz Ahmad, Muhammad Sharif and Saeed, petitioners herein, who stand arrested since 11-3-1993 in case F.I.R. No.4/93, dated 10-1-1993, registered at Police Station Meeranpur, District Vehari, for the murder of Allah Wasaya and injuries to Mst. Amir Mai, Hajan Rahmat Mai, Munir Ahmad and Siddiq P.Ws. F.I.R. was lodged by Amir Bakhsh son of the deceased.

2. According to the prosecution, Mst. Amir Mai due to strained relations with her husband Allah Bachaya was living with her father Ghulam Muhammad. Her two daughters Khalida Perveen and Sajida Perveen were living with her. Allah Bachaya wanted to marry his daughters to the persons of his choice while Mst. Amir Mai wanted to marry them in the family of her choice. On the day of occurrence, according to the prosecution the petitioners alongwith Allah Bachaya (father of the girls) with 8 others came to lift away the two girls from the house of Ghulam Muhammad. A fight took place there wherein Allah Bakhsh (co-accused of petitioners) caused fatal injury to the deceased with hatchet while Mst. Amir Mai, Hajan Rahmat Mai, Munir Ahmad and Siddiq P.Ws. suffered injuries at the hands of the petitioners with Sotas which were found to be simple in nature,

3. Petitioners' bail plea was declined by the lower Court, hence this petition.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as for the State and also perused the record.

5. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, that a Punchayat had been convened at the house of Ghulam Muhammad, father of Mst. Amir Mai, and during the deliberation the matter had suddenly flared up which 1lminated into free tight resulting in death of Allah Wasaya. He says that there was no premeditated attack or intention on part of the petitioners to kill Allah Wasaya, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the grant of bail. Learned counsel for the State, however, opposed the petition.

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case I find that the plea of sudden fight raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is not wholly without force. It is of interest to note that deceased Allah Wasaya is not resident of the place where the occurrence took place. He had come from different village. In the circumstances, the question whether the petitioners who did not cause any injury to the deceased were vicariously liable for death of Allah Wasaya (deceased) needs to be thrashed. In the circumstances, to my mind, the case of petitioners is covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C., and as such they are entitled to the grant of concession of bail. This petition is consequently allowed and it is directed that the petitioners be released subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000 with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Mailsi. N.H.Q./A-523/L Bail allowed.