1999 PLP 2208 (YLR)

Ch. Shahid Siddique Kisana for the Complainant. Muhammad Hanif Saleemi for the State. A case under section 302/34, P.P.C. was registered against the petitioner and others on the ground that while armed with Sotas they attached Kazi Raza deceased and killed him on the spot. The co‑accused of the petitioner namely Nasir and Shahbaz gave blows to the deceased on his head whereas the petitioner gave Sota blow which fell on the right hand finger of the deceased.

2. It is contended that petitioner is entitled to bail on the ground that there is contradiction between the injuries mentioned in the F.I.R. and the post‑mortem report. In this resect, it is alleged that F.I.R. showed only three injuries whereas actually there were 10/11 injuries on the person of the deceased, which were detected at the time of post‑mortem examination. There was allegedly delay of 12 hours in lodging the F.I.R. and that there was a counter‑version put up by the petitioner, which required determination as to which of the parties was aggressor.

3. Lastly it was contended that petitioner was attributed the only injury on the non‑vital part of the body of the deceased i.e. a finger of the hand and as such his vicarious liability will not be extended with his co‑accused who had caused fatal injuries.

4. The bail petition was opposed by the learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant on the ground that the F.I.R. was promptly lodged; that there was a motive for killing the deceased; that recovery _of weapon of offence has been effected from the petitioner; that the accused party is pressing hard upon the complainant for compromise and as such interfering with the smooth trial. which has commenced in the Court below; and lastly that the petitioner was a prime mover in the whole of the occurrence as he had excited his co‑accused by raising Lalkara to finish the deceased. He not only raised Lalkara, but also caused injury as aforesaid to the deceased and as such would have no case for bail.

5. I have considered the foregoing submissions and find that deeper appreciation of the merits of the case in respect of alleged contradiction regarding the number of injuries in the F.I.R. and in the post‑mortem report cannot be made at the bail stage. Even otherwise the number of injuries will show that those were merely abrasions and scratches according to the post‑mortem report except two injuries which were considered sufficient to have caused death of the deceased. In such a situation, no advantage can be given to the petitioner at this stage, particularly when the challan has already been sent to the Court concerned for trial. It is enough to say that the petitioner having been named in the F.I.R. and caused an injury to the deceased after exhorting other accused for attack would have no case for bail at this stage. The bail petition is accordingly dismissed. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M‑1036/L Bail refused.