1992 P Cr (PLP)

Sardar, Faiz Muhammad Khan Khosa for Petitioner. Nafees Ahmad Ansari for the State. Date of hearing: 4th February, 1992, Muhammad Javed has applied for grant of after arrest bail in a case under section 302/109/148/149, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Daira Din Panah, District Muzaffargarh. The F.I.R. was lodged on 24‑6‑1991 by Lal Khan.

2. The prosecution version in brief is that the complainant was an agriculturist; was resident of Chah Gariwala, Mauza Hanjrai Ghair Mustikal Gharbi, alongwith his brother Hamanda Khan, Ghulam Hussain alias Bina. On the day of occurrence he alongwith his brothers Hamanda Khan, Ghulam Hussain alias Bina and Ghulam Akbar son of Ghulam Hussain was present in his house at about 10 a.m. Bilal son of Ghulam Muhammad, Javed and Saleem sons of Gulsher alongwith 9 persons came near their house, firing. The complainant, his brother Hamanda Khan, Ghulam Hussain alias Bina and his nephew Ghulam Akbar, saw the accused while hiding on a wall. Meanwhile Allah Bakhsh went near the accused in order to stop them from firing, Ghulam Hussain alias Bina also went to stop them from firing. Meanwhile Bilal fired at them which hit his brother Ghulam Hussain who fell ‑ down and died instantaneously. The accused fled .away. The application for grant of after arrest bail was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh vide order, dated 12‑9‑1991.

3. After arrest bail is claimed on the ground that the applicant is nut accused of having caused injury to the deceased; that all the accused except Bilal had been granted after arrest bail by the learned trial Court. No identification parade was conducted with respect to 9 other accused, mentioned in the F.I.R.; that the petitioner was falsely involved in this case. Reliance was placed on Mir Afsar and others v. The State 1968 S C M R 49, Fazal Hussain and 4 others v. The State 1974 P Cr. L J

161. Faiz Muhammad v. Munir and another 1978 S C M R 189, Yamin Khan v. The State N I R 1986 SCJ 182 and Muhammad Farooq v. The State 1991 P Cr. L J 1319.

4. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General appearing on behalf of the State half‑heartedly opposed the application. He admitted that all other accused except Bilal were on bail.

5. It is clear from the prosecution version that the petitioner is not accused of causing injury to the deceased or any P.W. The other co‑accused have been granted ball. Applying the principle of consistency and without further going into the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the parties, I am of the view that this is a case of further inquiry. The applicant shall be released on bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties, each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. N.H.Q./M‑515/L Bail granted.