1989 P Cr (PLP)

The facts leading to the filing of this petition are that a case under section 307/148/149, P.PC. was registered with Police Station Chiniot City, District Jhang, vide F.I.R. dated 12‑12‑1987. The allegation contained in the F.I.R. is that the first informant alongwith his brother Rehmat Ali was sleeping in their Haveli; in the meanwhile, they heard some commotion and got up and saw nine persons armed with different weapons came; one Jani Shah accused took .7 mm rifle belonging to the first informant and another accused caught hold of .12 bore gun belonging to the first informant's companion; thereafter they threatened the first informant and others with dire consequences in case anybody raised a noise. The accused persons are alleged to have taken away five buffaloes, belonging to the first informant. The first informant and his brother Rehmat Ali raised alarm whereupon one Muhammad accused fired hitting Rehmat Ali. Second shot was fired by Bhai Khan accused which also hit Rehmat Ali. The other accused also fired. The first informant and his companion tried to rescue the cattle head whereupon some of the accused who were armed with Lathis started belabouring them with the same. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. Submits that only nine persons were named to the F.I.R. out of which seven have been declared innocent by the police. Contends that only allegation against the petitioner is that he was seen by two Wajtakkar witnesses in the company of the co‑accused going on a tractor trolley. The contentions have been opposed by learned counsel for the State.

2. I have heard learned counsel and perused the record. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. It is not he case of the first informant that he saw some persons standing outside his house at the time of the commission of the offence The involvement of the petitioner comes on record for the first time on 14‑12 1988 when the police recorded the statements of two witnesses who saw the petitioner alongwith his co‑accused coming on a tractor trolley with five cattle head. There is nothing on record to indicate that at the time of the commission of offence the petitioner was present at the scene of occurrence. The witnesses who saw the petitioner in the company of his co‑accused was admittedly after the commission of the offence and their statements were recorded after about two days of the alleged occurrence. In these circumstances, I think the case of the petitioner does become of further inquiry entitling him to the concession of bail. The petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.30,000 with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Chiniot, District Jhang. M.Y.H./M‑1241/L Bail granted.