1992 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/307/148/149/109‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑None of the accused persons was named in F.I.R.‑‑‑Injured who died subsequently, specifically attributed injury to one who had been held innocent by Police‑‑‑Both eye‑witnesses did not even state that any of accused was present on the spot‑‑‑Motive as given in F.I.R., was also not directed against any of accused‑‑‑Case being of further inquiry, bail was granted to accused. Ghaus Muhammad Chaudhry for Petitioners. Hafiz Ghulam Bari for the State. Petitioners Zahid Imran, Ehsan Ullah and Nasir Mahmood seek bail in a case registered with Police Station Naushehra Virkan, District Gujranwala, for offences under section 302/307/148/149/109, P.P.C., vide F.I.R. dated 13‑8‑1990. The case was got registered by Hadayatullah with the allegation that on 12‑8‑1990 at about 12‑30 noon, he was going to the Dera of his uncle Muhammad Akram. When he reached near the Dera, all the eleven accused, named in the F.I.R., armed with different fire‑arms, confronted him. Nasarullah accused is alleged to have fired hitting on the left shoulder of Hadayatullah, the first informant, whereupon he fell down. He raised alarm which attracted Liaqat Ali and Riasat Ali witnesses, who rescued the injured from the assailants. All the accused persons while firing in the air went back to their Dera. The motive for the occurrence was that the first informant's uncle Muhammad Akram had a dispute with the accused persons regarding possession of some land, therefore, the present occurrence. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that none of the petitioners was named in the F.I.R. though it was lodged by Hadayatullah injured, who succumbed to the injuries almost a month after the incident. Submits that similarly Liaqat Ali and Riasat Ali, eye‑witnesses, mentioned in the F.I.R, in their statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C., have not mentioned any of the petitioners as assailant 'or present at the spot. Argued that the police during investigation has held all the eleven accused persons mentioned in the F.I.R., innocent and has involved the present petitioners on the statements of three witnesses, namely, Manzoor Ahmad, Muzaffar and Munir who were not even mentioned as eye‑witnesses in the F.I.R. The contentions have been opposed by learned counsel for the State.

2. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the F.I.R. None ok the petitioners is mentioned in the F.I.R. The injured, who died subsequently, specifically attributed injury to one Nasarullah who has been held innocent by the police. Both the eye‑witnesses, namely, Liaqat Ali and Riasat Ali do not even state that any of the petitioners was present at the spot. In such circumstances, even if the police have managed to get the statements of some of the witnesses much after the occurrence, would make it a case of further inquiry. The motive as given in the F.I.R. is also not directed against any of the petitioners: In these circumstances, I feel it has become a case of further inquiry which entitles the petitioners to the grant of bail. The petitioners are allowed bail provided each of them furnishes security in the sum of Rs.25,000 with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate concerned. H.B.T./Z‑229/L Bail granted.