2003 PLP 2534 (YLR)

Ch. Ali Muhammad for Petitioner. Ray Shahadat Ali Kharal for the Complainant. Noor Muhammad Qsir for the State. The matter pertains to case F.I.R. No.262, dated 23-10-2001 registered under sections 302, 324 and 149, P.P.C. at Police Station Qila Deedar Singh, Gujranwala. The F.I.R. in this case was registered at the instance of Khurshid Ahmad There is history of a previous murder case inter se the parties as well. A murder case was fixed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Gujranwala and five members of the complainant party were going the said Court for recording their statements when they found a Hilux van having 3/4 persons who belonged to the other side in the previous murder case and who were armed. It is alleged that the said persons were not nominated in the F.I.R. They stopped the vehicle of the complainant side after a Lalkara was raised by one of the members of the accused side. When Akhtar Saeed (not the petitioner) fired at the Hilux van with his rifle, the rest also fired and injuries were caused to different people Three persons were killed in this case.

3. Suleman petitioner is asking for his bail on the ground that he was the driver of the Hilux which was used by the accused side for the murderous assault and for the planned murder of those who were killed. But has taken the plea that it was at gun-point that he was asked to carry the assailants in his van and it was at gun-point that he later took them back to their respective places. During investigation and as it appears from the Zimni dated 5-1-2002 his plea appears to have been accepted by the Investigating Officer, who has not only recorded this police diary but even in the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. has repeated his views about petitioner. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Asghar v. The State 2002 SCMR 1299.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant is of the view that he may be a party with them because of having remained away from the police during a good span of time until he was arrested. The A.S.-I. present in Court has suggested that this could be on account of fear because one of the assailants is a hired assassin who is his neighbour and the petitioner remained obsessed with fear because of him.

5. The question is whether petitioner was a party in the occurrence or was an innocent driver, who under duress had the assailants to the place of occurrence. His name appears nowhere in the F.I.R. nor has he been given a role. There is no motive attributed to him and he is not a party in the previous murder. The A.S.-I. further informs that he carries on the business of hiring his Hilux for different purposes and is not a previous convict nor is he involved in any other case. Under the circumstances, the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two local respectable sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./S-613/L Bail granted.