1986 P Cr (PLP)

Muhammad Rafiq Khan Chauhan for Respondents Nos. 1 to

7. Date of hearing: 25th January, 1986. Sohna petitioner has moved this petition for cancellation of bail allowed to Akram, Aslam Masita, Sher Muhammad Ghulam Rasul, Sabir Ali and Muhammad Zaman respondents by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, in a case under sections 148, 342, 325, 326 and 302/149, P. P. C. The F.I.R. version is that on 22‑4‑1985 at about Degarwela Sohna complainant and his son Habib Ullah deceased were cutting fodder from their field when Akram respondent armed with a rifle, Aslam, Sher Muhammad and Ghulam Rasul respondents armed with guns, Masita and Yasin respondents armed with Sotas, Sabir Ali and Faqir Muhammad armed with hatchets and their co‑accused Jamal Din, Asghar Ali, Rashid Ahmed, Muhammad Zeman and Islam‑ud‑Din armed with Dangs came there raising Lalkaras and started causing injuries to both of them with their weapons. The accused armed with firearms fired their weapons in the air, Faqir Muhammad gave a hatchet blow to Habib Wish deceased on his forehead while the accused armed with Dangs and Sotas also caused him injuries. Asghar and Rashid gave Deng blows to the complainant causing injuries on left ankle, left thigh and right arm. Thereafter, on exhortation of Jamal Din, the accused persons forcibly took away the complainant and his son to their Dera situate at a distance of three/four killas. On reaching there, Asghar Ali and Rashid accused held the deceased from his legs and Islam‑ud‑Din and Yasin accused held his arms. Jamal Din fractured both the legs of Habib Ullah deceased and told the complainant that he had taken the revenge and he could take away his son. The occurrence was witnessed by Shaukat Ali and Abbas. In the F.I.R. it was alleged that due to indiscriminate firing no body could rescue the complainant and his son. The motive for the occurrence was that one and a half years prior to the occurrence, a case under section 325, P.P.C. was registered against the deceased and six others for fracturing the leg of Jamal Din accused and the accused persons harboured grudge against the deceased due to that incident.

2. Akram, Aslam and Masita respondents were granted pre‑arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, while Sher Muhammad, Ghulam Rasul, Sabir Ali and Muhammad Zaman respondents were allowed after‑arrest bail by the same Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents are named in the F.I.R. there is a large number of injuries on the persons of, the deceased and the fact that the deceased and the complainant were forcibly taken away to the Dera of the accused situate at a distance of 3/4 Killas clearly suggests that a large number accused had participated in the occurrence. He further submits that male fide was alleged in the bail application made before the Session: Court for anticipatory bail and that all the accused have been fount involved by the D.S.P., Crimes Branch, therefore, it was not at all i, fit case for the grant of pre‑arrest or after‑arrest bail.

4. Learned counsel for the State supports this petition for cancellation of bail. He submits that during the investigation conducted by the D.S.P., Crimes Branch, all the accused have been found involved.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that Masita and Aslam respondents were found innocent by the local Police, there was no fire‑arm or sharp weapon injury on the deceased and the complainant and no specific injury has been attributed to the respondents, therefore, bail has been rightly granted.

6. I have gone through the relevant material and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. A certified copy of the petition for bail before arrest made in the Sessions Court has been placed on the file. It does not contain any allegation that the intended arrest would be tainted with mala fide and the petition against Akram, Aslam and Masita respondents who were granted bail before arrest, merits success on that score alone. The manner in which the occurrence is alleged to have taken place does suggest that a large number of persons had participated in the occurrence. The deceased and the complainant were first attacked in their field and thereafter the deceased was forcibly taken away to the Dera of co‑accused Jamal Din situate at a distance of 3/4 Killas from the place of first assault. He was given merciless beating at the Dera of Jamal Din. His legs were placed on a Muhdi and fractured with a wooden hammer. Prima facie, there is substance in the contention that it would not have been possible to take away the deceased by force to a distance of 3/4 Killas without the cover of fire. The respondents are shown to have a strong motive to attack the deceased. One and half years prior .to the occurrence he alongwith others fractured the leg of Jamal Din and was challaned under section 325, P.P.C. The finding of the local Police does not matter much because during the investigation conducted by D.S.P. Crimes Branch all the accused were found involved. In the circumstances, it was not a fit case for grant of bail. This petition is, therefore, accepted and the bail allowed to the respondents by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is cancelled. The respondents shall be taken 'into custody and sent to Jail. S. G. D. Bail cancelled