2001 PLP 2362 (YLR)

Muhammad Rafiq Rajput for the State. Date of hearing: 11th January, 2001. The petitioner is involved in case F.I.R. No.535 of 2000, dated 7‑7‑2000 for an offence under sections 302/34/ 109/148 and 149, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Saddar, Pakpattan Sharif on the statement of Allah Ditta complainant alleging that he is resident of Mauza. Rehmani Malkana and is agriculturist by profession. In the previous night he alongwith Muhammad Maqsood father were sleeping in the cattle‑shed. At about 1‑00 a.m. Khan Muhammad alias Khanni armed with .12 bore gun, Zahoor Ahmad armed with .12 bore gun, Ghafoor armed with rifle 7 M.M. Shameer armed with sota, Ismail armed with sota all sons of Manzoor Ahmad Caste Malkana Wattoo came there. They awakened him and his father and they threatened them that they will not spare them. Khan alias Khanni was armed with gun who fired two shots on his father namely Muhammad Maqsood which hit on the left thigh. Then Zahoor accused fired at his father which also hit on the left thigh. Ghafoor kept on firing in the air. On hue and cry of the complainant and due to the noise of firing Shaukat Ali and Hakim Ali sons of Bashir Ahmad Caste Wattoo attracted at the spot and witnessed the occurrence. He identified the accused persons in the moonlight. Shameer and Ismail threatened with the same consequences if anybody dare to come near them. We (the complainant party) frightened and in the meanwhile the accused decamped from the spot with their respective weapons. Father of the complainant succumbed to the injuries after a while. The motive behind this occurrence is that a fight between the patties had occurred on the dispute of canal water. The father of the above said accused party was injured, as a result of that fight a criminal case was got registered on the statement of the accused party. On account of this grudge, .the accused persons in conspiracy with each other and with Muhammad Ameer son of Fazil Caste Wattoo committed the murder of the father of the complainant.

2. Earlier the bail was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge‑I, Pakpattan Sharif vide his order dated 18‑10‑2000 with the following observations:‑ "It is a promptly lodged F.I.R. petitioner has been named therein with specific attribution of role. Motive of the occurrence is directly connected with the petitioner. Perusal of record shows that P.Ws. have implicated the petitioner in the offence vide their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. No hard and fast role can be led down that if the petitioner is not seddled with any fatal injury than he should be released on bail. He was at the time of commission of offence a member of unlawful ' assembly who in furtherance of common object of all caused calpable homicide. Therefore, at this stage no premium can .be allowed to the petitioner because prima facie, reasonable grounds exists to believe about the involvement of the petitioner. This petition is dismissed. However, my above findings will not affect upon the merits of the case."

3. Now the bait is pressed on the grounds that the petitioner has been found innocent during the investigation of the above said criminal case and has been placed in Column No.2 of the challan/report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Therefore, it is a fit case for further inquiry and that no weapon of offence has been recovered from the petitioner and that the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case due to previous, enmity existing between the parties and whole family of the petitioner has been roped falsely and that the above said case against the petitioner is totally false, baseless .and concocted one and that the petitioner is in the judicial lock‑up and is no more required by the Police for further investigation and that no useful purpose would be served to keep the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period and that the petitioner is previously non‑convict and is ready to furnish bail bonds to the satisfaction of this Honourable Court and that there is no likelihood of tempering or hampering with the prosecution evidence if the petitioner is enlarged on bail and that there is no possibility of the absconsion of the petitioner.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted by the police officer have vehemently opposed the grant of bail to' the petitioner on the same grounds as have been mentioned by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 'Pakpattan Sharif. The Investigating Officer is present and submits that the petitioner has been found innocent during the investigation of the above said criminal case and has been placed in Column No.2 of the Challan/report under section 173, Cr.P.C.

5. I have given due consideration to the valuable arguments on both sides.

6. The tentative assessment shows that the petitioner has been found innocent during the investigation and has been kept in Column No.2 of the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. and the allegation against the petitioner is only that of firing in the air. Despite judicial remand no recovery has been effected. All these factors taken together make this case that of further probe. As such, bail is granted to the petitioner subject to his furnishing‑bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (rupees fifty thousand) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./G‑115/L Bail granted.