2009 P Cr (PLP)

GHULAM MOHY-UD-DIN MALIK, J.

By means of this bail petition, Taj Muhammad accused seeks his release on bail in case F.I.R. No.26, dated 19-2-2008 charged under sections 302/324/34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Bakot Abbottabad, after rejection of his bail applications by the learned Courts below.

2. The facts are that on 18-2-2008 Muhammad Aftab reported to the police that on 18-2-2008 at about 2130 hours, when the supporters of returned Candidate Sardar Mehtab Ahmed Khan Abbasi were celebrating the victory of their candidate, and the procession reached near the house of Gul Baz, the accused party belonging to rival group fired at them from the Verandah of the house of Gul Baz; that the bullets fired by Taj petitioner hit Usman on his right leg and Naheed-ur-Rehman on left ear, who fell down and succumbed to the injuries. The co-accused were also charged for firing at the complainant party.

3. On the other hand, there is a report of Muhammad Taj (petitioner) recorded vide F.I.R. No.27 almost of the same date, time and place registered under sections 435, 427/147/149, P.P.C. He stated that in the wake of elections result when the supporters of Sardar Mehtab were celebrating the occasion, they came nearer to the house of Gul Baz, raising slogans against their opponents, started firing in the air and consequently set at fire their two vehicles; one belonging to him (Taj petitioner) and another to Gul Baz.

4. Now, keeping in view the two F.I.Rs. the site plans prepared in both the cases, the date, time and place of occurrence being in the close vicinity of the house of Gul Baz. These cases seem to be outcome of same transaction, as the series of acts are so connected together as to form a part of same incident, though with different version.

5. During the preliminary investigation, the Investigating Officer amongst others has recorded statements of Muhammad Zafeer, Mst. Zaitoon Bibi, Muhammad Majid, Usman Abbasi and Shabbir Hussain, as eye-witnesses of the occurrence but the above named witnesses have sworn affidavits to the effect that they had not seen the occurrence as alleged and that they have not made any statement against the accused.

6. Apart from the above, the site plan prepared in the murder case is contrary to the allegations made in the F.I.R. where the assailants have been shown in the Verandah of Gul Zaman at the time of firing, while in the site plan, they have been brought down the thoroughfare, in front of complainant party most probably with a view to make them visible and easily identifiable at late evening time. So taking into consideration all these attending facts and circumstances of the case and without dilating upon the merits of case in detail, I believe that it would be seen at the trial, as to what actually happened at the spot, who initiated the fight, who acted in self-defence. In such-like situation, ordinary rule is that for determination as to who was at fault and aggressor, bail should be granted, pending further enquiry into the matter.

7. In these circumstances by placing reliance on the case law reported in (1) 1996 SCMR page 978 and 1845, (2) 1979 SCMR page 30, (3) PLD 1996 SC page 241, (4) MLD 2002 page 1502 and (5) 2007 YLR page

388. I admit petitioner Taj to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Ilaqa/Duty Judicial Magistrate, who shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means. H.B.T./196/P Bail granted.