1995 PLP 1647 (MLD)

Case F.I.R. No.248 of'1994 was registered at Police Station Sangla Hill District Sheikhupura under section 302/324/148/149/1(19, P.P.C. on 29‑12‑1994 on the basis of the statement made to Muhammad Shari S.I./S.H.O. by Zahoor Ahmad son of Charagh Din r/o Chak No.25 Sathiali Khurd. It was alleged in the F.I.R. that criminal litigation was pending between the complainant and Ahmad Din and case F.I.R. No.79 of 1994 of the said police station under section 324/337/148/149, P.P.C. was registered against the complainant party whereas the cross‑case was registered against the other side but a compromise was effected. After sometime some mischievous persons created misunderstanding. On the day of occurrence he was busy in his fields alongwith Muhammad Shafiq his brother, Rashid Siddiq and Muhammad Siddiq that Rashid Siddiq left for his house. When he reached near the house, Pervaiz son of Muhammad Rafiq fired at him who escaped unhurt. On. hearing the gun shot the complainant alongwith Muhammad Shafiq and Muhammad Saeed left for the village. When at about 4‑30 p.m. they reached near Chowk Umar Hayat, they saw, in front of the shop Pervaiz aforesaid armed with .12 bore gun, Tariq Mahmood similarly armed whereas Farman Ali armed with 222 Rifle, Ahmad Din armed with 7 M.M. Rifle and Zulfiqar Ali armed with 12 bore gun, way laying them. On seeing the complainant Ahmad Din raised a Lalkara that Shafiq may not escape today and they all fired. Shafiq ran into the house of Nisar Ahmad to save his life but was chased by Pervaiz and Tariq Mahmood. Pervaiz fired hitting Shafiq on his right shin. Tariq Mahmood fired hitting Muhammad Shafiq on his left knee who fell down and was fired at by the aforesaid Pervaiz and Tariq Mahmood while he wasJying injured on the ground. When the complainant, alongwith Muhammad Saeed and Muhammad Ahmad, reached the spot raising alarms, both the accused ran away. Subsequently when they were going towards their house to make arrangements for taking Shafiq to the Hospital, Farman fired his 222 rifle hitting Rashid Siddiq on his back. He also fell down. He was taken to the house. When they went to the house of Nisar Ahmad to escort Muhammad Shafiq to the hospital, they found him dead and that the aforesaid Pccused have murdered Muhammad Shafiq and caused injuries to Rashid Siddiq on the abetment of Umer Hayat and Muhammad Ashiq petitioner.

2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations against the petitioner were of abetment of the crime whereas the complainant had not disclosed the source of information. No witness of abetment was cited in the F.I.R. and that the petitioner was an old and infirm man and that there were reasonable grounds to believe that he was not guilty of the offence alleged against him.

3. The bail has been opposed on the ground that the Investigating officer collected sufficient material against the petitioner which, if unrebutted, would lead to his conviction. Muhammad Siddiq son of Charagh had made a statement on the day of registration of the F.I.R. whereas Muhammad Bashir, Muhammad Zaman and Siddiq made statements on 30‑12‑1994. Karamat Ali, Munir Ahmad and Ghulam Nabi had also made statements wherein the said persons had clearly stated that the petitioner and his son Umer Hayat had stated that they would take revenge from Shafiq and they would murder him.

4. The statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. were read by the learned counsel for the complainant in Court. These statements were recorded on 29‑12‑1994, 30‑12‑1994 and 28‑2‑1995.

5. It is an admitted fact that the present petitioner was neither a complainant nor a witness in case F.I.R. No.79 of 1994 and it has also been admitted by the complainant that the said case was compromised and even a compromise deed was executed and after the execution of the compromise deed the alleged threat by the petitioner and his son Umer Hayat during the negotiations for compromise had lost its sting. No fresh cause was alleged nor any evidence subsequent to the compromise regarding abetment is available on the file. The Investigating Officer collected the copy of an application made to D.I.‑G., Faisalabad Range alleging therein that Umer Hayat accused of abetment who was posted in Faisalabad Range had tresspassed into their house and had abused the ladies. The said application was recommended by Mr. Badar‑ud‑Din Chaudhry, Minister for Social Welfare, Government of the Punjab on 27‑5‑1994 and was made by Muhammad Shafiq deceased, Saeed Ahmad and Zahoor Ahmad P.Ws. The compromise deed having been subsequently executed between the parties this application also a fact earlier to the date of compromise and it shall be seen at the stage of trial whether the said complaint was in fact based on truth or otherwise as the place of occurrence mentioned therein did not relate to the territorial jurisdiction of D.I.‑G., Faisalabad to whom the same was made.

6. The contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that the petitioner had violated the order of the Sessions Judge in not filing the bail bonds has no relevance before this Court. The jurisdiction of this Court and the Court of Sessions was concurrent and the petitioner did move an application before the Court of Sessions which was dismissed.

7. The fact that political personages, in power, were interested in the complainant and were recommending applications is sufficient to show that the Investigating Officer was motivated by some other consideration. The factum of extending threats also related to the period before the execution of compromise deed in case F.I.R. No.79 of 1994 and in the circumstances of the case, I am of the view that there are sufficient grounds for further enquiry into the guilt of the petitioner. No recovery is required to be made from the petitioner and he has undertaken to join the investigation as and when required.

8. The petition is allowed and the interim bail granted to the petitioner on 3‑5‑1995 is confirmed.

9. The petitioner shall, however, furnish fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Ahmad Pur District Sheikhupura. H.B.T./M‑2150/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?? Petition allowed.