1994 PLP 699 (SCMR)

SALEEM AKHTAR, J.‑‑‑The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the order passed by the learned Judge in Chambers whereby the bail granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was cancelled.

2. The prosecution case briefly is that about three months back from the date of incident, Qadu petitioner No. 1 suspected illicit relations between his wife Mst. Tajal with Mir Haji, the father of the complainant. On 18‑1‑1993 in the morning Mir Haji, Maula Bakhsh, Din Muhammad and Allah Bakhsh, after prayers went to mosque, namely, Rehmdil Wali. Mir Haji went ahead four urination and while after easing himself was coming towards the mosque Qadu armed with hatchet, Ghazi armed with knife, Muhammad son of Qadu armed with Soti, Shanu armed with .12 bore gun and Khamisa armed with Soti came there and raised Lalkara that as Haji Mir had illicit relations with Mst. Tajal, he should not be spared Muhammad attacked with Sod on the head of Haji Mir Khamisa attacked with Soti injuring him at his back. Khamisa again attacked Haji Mir while Muhammad inflicted blows with Soti on the right side of the back. Haji Mir fell down when Qadu caught hold of the head of Haji Mir and Ghazi cut the tip of the nose with knife. The complainant and others raised Lalkara upon which the petitioners ran towards their house. The complainant party reached the house of Qadu where Mst. Tajal was present. The petitioners caught hold of Mst. Tajal and Qadu gave a hatchet blow on her head. She fell down. Haji Shanu gave a Butt blow with his gun at the head of Mst. Tajal and Muhammad strangled her throat and she died on the spot. After the death of Mst. Tajal the petitioners took the dead body of Mst. Tajal towards river Sindh. The learned Additional Sessions Judge refused bail to Qadu and Ghazi, but it was granted to Muhammad and Shanu under section 497 (2), Cr.P.C. Petitioners No.1 and 2 applied for bail while the complainant applied for cancellation of bail granted to the former. The learned Judge in Chambers cancelled the bail of petitioners No.3 and 4 and refused bail to petitioners No.1 and 2.

3. The learned counsel contended that it was a case of Ghairat where the deceased was admittedly held to have illicit relations with Mst. Tajal. He further contended that the parties have compromised and have filed affidavits to that effect. At this stage, it may not be possible to look into the affidavits filed in support of alleged compromise. The petitioners have been assigned specific role in the F.I.R. and there are eye‑witnesses also to that effect. The learned counsel further contended that the dead body of Mst. Tajal has not been recovered as she was not killed by the petitioners and she has fled away. Be that as it may the fact remains that the accused have been implicated for committing murder of Haji Mir and also chopping off his nose. The injuries attributed to them find support from the medical report. Prima facie there are reasonable grounds to connect the petitioners with the crime alleged against, them. In these circumstances, the petition is dismissed. N.H.Q./Q‑52/S Leave refused.