2005 PLP 2750 (YLR)

Muhammad Tayyib Abu Bakar petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.117, registered at Police Station Baghdad-ul-Jadid, on 16-4-2004, for offences under sections 302/148/149 P.P.C.

2. The relevant facts, per F.I.R., are that on 16-4-2004 at about 8-00 p.m. when the complainant was present at his shop, Muhammad Iqbal P.W. informed him that 5/6 persons were causing injuries to his brother Muhammad Shahzad with Chhuris (kitchen's knife). After receipt of information the complainant along with Muhammad Ajmal and Muhammad Afzal sons of Ahmad Bakhsh (P.Ws.) reached the scene of occurrence and saw that Muhammad Afzal and Muhammad Anwar both sons of Muhammad Ashraf and Khurshid were causing injuries to the deceased with Chhuris, while Muhammad Qasim, Muhammad Sajjid and Muhammad Abid were accompanying them. Muhammad Shahzad succumbed to the injuries, while he was being taken to B.V. Hospital, Bahawalpur. Thereafter the matter was reported to the police.

3. The motive behind the occurrence, as stated in the F.I.R. was that Muhammad Afzal/accused had got a case registered against Muhammad Shahzad/deceased for committing sodomy with his son Rashid. Muhammad Shahzad-deceased was released on bail, which caused grievance to the accused.

4. On 17-4-2004 supplementary statement of Nasir Mehmood-complainant and the statement of Muhammad Ajmal P.W. were recorded. In his statement the complainant stated that it had come to his knowledge that, in fact, Muhammad Tayyib Abu Bakar-petitioner murdered his brother. Muhammad Ajmal P.W. in his statement stated that the complainant had named Khurshid, Afzal, Anwar, Qasim and Abid as accused in the F.I.R. as he was disturbed due to the death of his brother; and that in fact the actual culprit was Muhammad Tayyib Abu Bakar-petitioner.

5. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 30-4-2004 and while in custody led to the recovery of blood-stained dagger on 3-5-2004.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that it was an un-witnessed occurrence; and that name of the petitioner has been added in the list of accused merely on suspicion.

7. The learned counsel for the complainant and the State have opposed this application and have argued that P.Ws. Nasir Mehmood-complainant and Muhammad Ajmal had named the petitioner as accused on the very next day of the occurrence i.e. 17-4-2004; that after arrest, the accused led to the recovery of blood-stained dagger; and that the offences fell within the mischief of prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C., thus, the petitioner did not deserve concession of bail.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Admittedly, though six persons were named as accused yet the name of the petitioner does not figure in the F.I.R. Perusal of the F.I.R reveals that specific allegation was levelled against Afzal, Anwar and Khurshid-accused that they were seen causing injuries to the deceased. It has not been mentioned in the supplementary statements of the P.Ws. that they had seen the petitioner causing injuries to the deceased. According to the police record the age of the petitioner was 15/16 years and his case was covered by the proviso to subsection (1) of section 497 Cr.P.C. In these circumstances, I am inclined to admit the petitioner to bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of rupees fifty thousand, with one surety, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./M-1182/L Bail granted.