1998 P Cr (PLP)

Muhammad Tariq has applied for bail in a case registered under section 302/324/34, P.P.C. vide F.I.R. No.675, dated 9‑10‑1997 at Police Station City Bahawalnagar for committing murder of Rizwan Anwar.

2. Succinctly stated the facts are that about 6/7 days prior to the occurrence, complainant Amir Umar alongwith Rizwan Anwar (since deceased) was present on his shop, when Abdul Jabbar alongwith his co‑accused Muhammad Tariq came there on a car. They misbehaved with lady customers present on .the shop. Rizwan Anwar restrained them from cutting jokes, upon which they felt annoyed and left the place issuing threats of dire consequences. On 9‑10‑1997 at 11‑30 a.m. terror stricken Rizwan met the complainant at Bahwali Chowk and informed him (complainant) that he was being chased by Abdul Jabbar and Muhammad Tariq and he should accompany him to his house. The complainant alongwith Rizwan then proceeded to his house on motorcycle. When they reached City Chowk, both the accused reached there on a car and hit the same with the motorcycle of the complainant. Resultantly, Rizwan Anwar fell down. Muhammad Tariq petitioner raised Lalkara and caught hold of the complainant from his collar. Abdul Jabbar brought out a dagger from the seat of car and inflicted a dagger blow on his left flank. Rizwan Anwar fell down. Both the accused then decamped from there.

3. Bail has been sought on the ground that petitioner did not cause any injury to the deceased, that he did not restrict the movements of the deceased, that he has been found innocent as a result of investigation conducted by D.S.P., who recorded the statements of Muhammad Sadiq, Samee‑ur‑Rehman, Shah Muhammad and 2 others, that as per investigation of D.S.P., it has been found that Aamir Umar complainant had a quarrel with Abdul Jabbar and Muhammad Tariq petitioner remained aloof at that time. In support of his contention, he has relied upon Mehmood Akhtar v. Nazir Ahmad 1995 SCMR 310, Naqi Hussain Shah v. The State 1992 SCMR 600 and Dr. Muhammad Aslam v. The State 1993 SCMR 2288.

4. Conversely bail application has been opposed by the learned State Counsel. His contention is that though the petitioner Muhammad Tariq has not caused any injury to the deceased, yet his presence with his co‑accused Abdul Jabbar at :ire time of occurrence and their chasing the deceased in a car clearly proves that he shared common intention with his co‑accused Abdul Jabbar and is equally responsible for the commission of this offence, that even the previous conduct of petitioner of visiting the shop of complainant and using threats of dire consequences to the deceased and complainant clearly proves his common intention with his co‑accused, that the inference of D.S.P. is based on the statements of witnesses whose presence is not proved from the statements of witnesses named in the F.I.R. that the inference based on such statements carries no weight. He placed reliance upon Nazir Muhammad v. The State PLD 1978 SC 236 to contend that where an accused shares common intention with the main accused, he is not entitled to the relief of bail.

5. I have considered the foregoing submissions and find myself unable to agree with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no doubt that the petitioner was empty‑handed at the time of occurrence and he also did not restrict the movement of deceased. Does this conduct of petitioner entitle him to the relief sought by him? Certainly not The previous conduct of petitioner cannot be lost sight of, while taking into consideration his conduct at the time of occurrence. It is evident from the contents of F.I.R. that petitioner with his co‑accused visited the shop of complainant and both of them were restrained from misbehaving with lady customers. Again on the day of occurrence, petitioner alongwith his co‑accused chased the deceased and terrified him to he extent that he had to seek the help of complainant even for reaching his own house. The matter did not end here. He (petitioner) alongwith his co -accused chased the deceased and caught hold of complainant and thereby facilitated his co‑accused to inflict a fatal blow on the person of Rizwan Anwar culminating into his death and that too in a busy Bazar. The conduct of the petitioner, as depicted above, clearly leads to an unresistable conclusion that He (petitioner) shared common intention with his co‑accused and he was also in the knowledge that his co‑accused was carrying a dagger with him at the time of occurrence. The other ground urged is that petitioner has been found innocent Y D.S.P. There is no dearth of authorities that opinion of Police Officers is not binding on the Court. Thus, no credence can be attached to such opinion and that too keeping in view the conduct of petitioner, who has been in jail for about 3‑1/2 months only. Resultantly, petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. H.B. T./M‑591 /L Petition dismissed.