2007 P Cr (PLP)

FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.

Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.LR. No.57, dated 24-3-2005, under sections 302/ 324/109, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Daira Din Panah, Tehsil Kot Adu, District Muzffargarh.

2. The allegation levelled against the petitioner in the F.I.R. is that on his abetment his son, namely, Abdul Latif co-accused and Muhammad Safdar, both armed with pistols and Ghulam Siddique armed with Sota launched a murderous attack upon the- complainant party on 24-3-2005, at about 8-30 a.m., and caused injuries by firing on the person of Ghulam Akbar deceased: The motive behind the alleged occurrence as stated in the F.I.R. is that complainant's brother Muhammad Iqbal had contracted marriage with sister of co-accused Abdul Latif (daughter of petitioner) and a criminal case was registered against Ghulam Akbar deceased etc., which was cancelled. and due to that grudge, the petitioner's party attacked upon the complainant's party. The F.I.R. was initially registered under sections 324/34/109, P.P.C. but subsequently on the death of the injured Ghulam Akbar, section 302 was added on the same day.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that no role is attributed to the petitioner in the F.I.R., only allegation of abetment is levelled. No witness of the said abetment or instigating his son and co-accused to commit the above said offence has been cited. Further submits that at the time of dying declaration of the deceased, nothing has been said about abetment. Petitioner has been involved being father of the co-accused Abdul Latif. Relying on Abdul Hameed v. The State 1983 PCr.LJ 1950 contends that the petitioner was not present at the spot at the time of occurrence and allegation of instigating co-accused on the day before commencement of the occurrence to kill the deceased, required further inquiry. Further relying on Malik Ejaz .Ali v. The State 2005 MLD 997, Feroze v. The State 2000 Law Notes (Lahore) 5, accused admittedly was not present on the spot at the time of occurrence and he was not alleged to have caused any injury to the deceased or to anyone else. Only allegation of abetment is levelled.

4. Conversely, learned State counsel opposed the bail application stating that the petitioner is involved in heinous offence and is not entitled to grant of bail.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. I find that case for enlarge on bail of the petitioner has been made out by the petitioner as he was not present of the spot and only allegation against him was abetment to co-accused to do away with the deceased. In the circumstances of the case, the case of the petitioner A requires further inquiry into his guilt. The petition is allowed and the petitioners is released on bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.5,00,000 (Rupees five hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./A-167/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.