2004 PLP 1801 (YLR)

Ch. Shahid Siddique Kasama for the Complainant. Mehmood‑ul‑Hassan Qureshi for the State. Date of hearing: 25th February, 2003. Dilmeer Hussain‑petitioner along with three others, namely, Ibrar Hussain, Shabbir Hussain and Babar Hussain, stands involved in Crime Report No.214, dated 19‑5‑2002, under sections 302/34, P.P.C. registered with Police Station, Thikriwala, District Faisalabad, at the instance of Ishtiaq Ahmed, brother of Aftab Ahmed deceased of this case.

2. A cursory study of the F.I.R. reveals Ibrar Hussain and Shabbir Hussain were armed with Chhurris and whacked one injury each on the person of deceased. Babar Hussain too was armed with a Chhurri, but he did not inflict any injury on the deceased. Subsequently, during course of investigation the complainant made a supplementary statement, in which he accused Babar Hussain of causing two injuries on the deceased by means of a Chhurry. Dilmeer Hussain‑petitioner was empty‑handed. He got into shop of the deceased, caught hold of him and then brought him out. Prior to the infliction of injuries, the deceased had given a flat refusal to deliver blueprint/obscene films to the accused, over which they showed a lot of resentment.

3. During course of investigation, the petitioner was taken into custody by the police on 20‑5‑2002 and was refused bail by a learned Additional Sessions Judge, at Faisalabad by virtue of his order dated 22‑10‑2002 on the basis of a variety of reasons for refusal thereof. Driven into this situation, he has approached this Court by filing the instant petition seeking same relief.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that trumped up accusations have been brought against the petitioner; that he has been falsely roped in this case due to animosity and has not committed the offence imputed to 'him and that he is behind the bars for the last about nine months. Adds that although challan was submitted to the Court, yet, prosecution has not produced a single witness in the case and is using dilatory tactics. He ends his arguments with the submission that true import of Lalkara is to be determined by the trial Court after recording of some material evidence and that allegation of Japha was unnatural and improbable one.

5. As against this, learned counsel for the complainant assisted by learned counsel for the State submits that name of the petitioner is mentioned in the first information report; that specific role has been assigned to him; that motive was strong and that he is guilty of offence by virtue of application of section 34, P.P.C. and now the case is fixed for recording of prosecution evidence on 8‑3‑2003.

6. I have with full care and devotional heard and considered respective arguments of learned counsel for both the sides. The petitioner alongwith others arrived at shop of the deceased. He got into the shop of Aftab Ahmad, hugged him and brought him out of the shop. Thereafter, his co accused launched a deliberate forceful attack on him by means of Chhuris, who died before reaching the hospital. By holding the deceased in his clasp, he facilitated commission of crime in question. Allegation against the petitioner is oil serious nature. His release on bail ate this stage is not justified. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed being devoid of force. H.B.T./D‑6/L Bail application dismissed,