P L D 1994 Lahore 129 (PLP)

As per F.LR. No.252/92 of P.S. Shahkot of District Sheikhupura, Muhammad Siddique and his son Ashfaq stand accused of the murder of one Shaukat Ali.

2. About the motive for the murder in question, it had been alleged through the said FIR that Siddique petitioner had expressed his desire to marry his daughter Mst. Yasmin to Shaukat deceased; that consequently both the parties had agreed on this match; that about three months prior to the occurrence Siddique petitioner asked the complainant, who is the father of Shaukat deceased, that Nikah of Mst. Yasmin and Shaukat deceased, should be performed; that the complainant expressed his inability in the matter and thereafter finally refused to accept the petitioner's daughter in marriage for his son and that it was this grievance which had promoted Siddique petitioner and his son to kill the son of the complainant, namely, Shaukat deceased:

3. About the actual occurrence, it had been claimed that Shaukat deceased had left his house on 20‑12‑1992. at about 7‑30 p.m.. to go to Faisalabad and just after he had reached the road and was followed by his complainant father, Siddique petitioner armed with a rifle, who was already present there with his son Ashfaq accused, fired a shot at Shaukat deceased who fell .injured whereafter Ashfaq accused snatched the said rifle from his father Siddique accused and fired another shot at the fallen Shaukat deceased.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the above‑narrated occurrence and the abovementioned motive have both been falsely stated by the complainant. He added that Siddique .petitioner specifically pleaded during the course of the investigation that Shaukat deceased had developed illicit liaison‑ with his daughter Mst. Yasmin; that in the early hours of the day of occurrence he found his daughter missing from the house; that he went out. in search of his said daughter and found his daughter and Shaukat deceased coming out of a sugar‑cane field and that it was on seeing the two in the said condition that he killed the deceased. The learned counsel adds that the petitioner having acted under gave and sudden provocation was not liable to be punished with death or imprisonment for life or even with imprisonment of ten years and that in the circumstances he deserved to be admitted to bail.

5. The learned State counsel assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant strongly argued against the grant of bail by contending that the petitioner had been specifically named as the murderer of Shaukat deceased that the defence story about the immoral liaison between Shaukat deceased, and the petitioner's daughter and the two having been seen together coming out of a sugar‑cane field was a concoction and that the petitioner thus did not deserve the concession of bail.

6. It is not denied that Siddique petitioner had specifically pleaded before the Investigation Officer that it was on account of the illicit liaison of Shaukat deceased with his daughter and on account of the two having been seen together as above‑mentioned that he had done the deceased to death. It is also verified that on an application made by the accused party, the abovementioned Mst. Yasmin had been medically examined under the orders of a Magistrate and that this medical examination which had been conducted four days after the occurrence in question had revealed that Mst. Yasmin who was still not married was used to committing sexual intercourse and further that the vaginal swabs of the said Mst. Yasmin which had been taken by the doctor and sent for chemical examination, had been found to have been stained with semen.

7. The defence plea above‑noticed is being supported from the material collected during the course of investigation. A perusal of the motive as narrated in the F.I.R. sufficiently demonstrates that the petitioner's version about the immoral liaison between the deceased and the petitioner's daughter, was a plausible explanation of the reasons which could have prompted the petitioner to kill the deceased. The medical evidence and the report of the Chemical Examiner further strengthen the defence plea taken up during the course of investigation and reiterated before me at the Bar.

8. The question then which has engaged my attention is whether an accused person causing the death of another in the above‑noticed circumstances was entitled to the concession of bail?

9. It is a principle too well established by now that the defence plea, it any, can be considered for the purpose of grant or otherwise of bail. The state of law as it exists in our country does make a definite allowance for the people acting under grave and sudden provocation. I feel tempted to make a reference to some AHADEETH of the Holly Prophet (Peace be upon him) as reported in Volume III of Sahi Bokhari Sharif published by Dini Kutab Khana Lahore which are reproduced hereunder:

10. Siddique petitioner claims to have acted under Ghairat. His plea, as has been noticed above, is not implausible. In the circumstances, I do not feel justified in grudging the concession of bail to Siddique petitioner who has been in custody for about a year. He is consequently allowed bail in case F.I.R. No.252/92, P.S. Shahkot, District Sheikhupura subject to his furnishing security in the sum of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Sheikhupura. N.H.Q./M‑1284/L Bail allowed