1989 PLP 4788(2) (MLD)

The petitioner, who is involved in a case under sections 302/109 P.P.C. arising out of F.I.R.No.507 dated 27‑12‑1988 registered at Police Station Peoples Colony, Faisalabad seeks to be released on bail. 2 Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that Muhammad Ayub Sadiq deceased was admitted in Faisal Hospital as a case of stomach ulcer and that on 27‑12‑1988 at 7.30 p.m. Anwar Sadiq complainant brother of Muhammad Ayub Sadiq was present with him as his attendant in the hospital. In the meantime Akhtar armed with knife, Rafique Ali petitioner empty handed along with Abdal co‑accused armed with klashnikov entered into the room of Ayub Sadiq deceased. Rafique Ali petitioner raised Lalkara and pointed out to his co- accused that he was Ayub Sadiq whereupon Abdal accused fired with his klashnikov and the shot hit him on his abdomen, legs urinary bladder due to which he died at the spot and they ran away. It is added as a motive that about 13/14 years before Ayub Sadiq deceased was married with Yasmin co‑accused and out of this wedlock four daughters and one son were born who are .alive and that about a year before Ayub Sadiq deceased contracted second marriage with Mst. Shagufta, Mst. Yasmeen co‑accused felt it ill and asked Ayub Sadiq deceased to divorce her. On 16‑12‑1988 at 2.00 p.m. Mst. Yasmin co‑accused and Rafique Ali petitioner went to Babar Filling Station, Sargodha Road where Ayub Sadiq deceased Pervez Ahmad and Ashraf were present. Mst. Yasmin and her companions pressured Ayub Sadiq to divorce Mst. Shagufta but he did not concede to their demands whereupon they became infuriated and were ready to kill him but Pervez and Ashraf PWs intervened and rescued Muhammad Ayub Sadiq. It is alleged that Muhammad Younas, Saeed Ahmad, Yasmin co‑accused and Rafique petitioner while leaving the place extended threats to Ayub Sadiq deceased that if he did not divorce Mst. Shagufta within a week they would get him murdered. Ayub Sadiq did not divorce Mst. Shagufta and due to this grudge the petitioner and his co‑accused murdered him.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that only the role of raisin Lalkara and pointing out Ayub Sadiq deceased has been attributed to the petitioner. Pervez Ahmad and Muhammad Ashraf PWs have sworn their affidavits to the effect that the petitioner has not instigated his co‑accused. Akhtar in their presence which completely demolishes the case of the prosecution against the petitioner. The petitioner has not given any injury to the deceased.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that it is on tile record that Abdal already knew Muhammad Ayub Sadiq and he had no motive against the deceased and there was no necessity for the petitioner to point out the deceased to Abdal who was already known to him.

5. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed this bail application on the ground that the petitioner is mentioned in the F.I.R. which was promptly lodged although he was empty handed yet he raised Lalkara and that on his instigation the murder was committed.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that there is substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that his case is of further inquiry because he was empty handed and the evidence of instigation which was collected by the police is of no doubtful character, in view of the affidavits sworn by Pervez Ahmad and Muhammad Ashraf PWs.

7. In view of the above mentioned circumstances, the petitioner is admitted to bail, provided he furnishes security in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, City, Faisalabad. SA./R‑170/L Bail granted.