1990 P Cr (PLP)

A case under section 17, Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, read with section 302/307/148/149, P.P.C. was registered with Police Station Saddar, Chiniot, District Jhang, on 12-12-1987. The allegations, as contained in the F.I.R., are that the first informant alongwith his brother Barkat Ali was sleeping in his Haveli when he heard some noise and saw nine persons armed, present in the Haveli. One of the accused Jani Shah took 7 m.m. rifle of the first informant, and another accused picked up .12 bore gun belonging to the first informant's companion. The accused persons threatened them of dire consequences in case they raised noise, and took away five buffaloes from the Haveli. The first informant and his brother Rehmat Ali raised alarm, whereupon Muhammad, co-accused of the petitioner fired hitting Rehmat Ali. It was followed by Bhai Khan whose shot also hit Rchmat Ali. When the first informant tried to rescue his cattle, he and his companions were given Lathi blows by the co-accused of the petitioner. Rehmat Ali in consequence of the injuries died.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. nor was alleged to have been present at the spot. Argued that during investigation the petitioner was found involved on the basis of the statements of two Wajtakkar witnesses who had deposed two days after the occurrence before the police that they saw the petitioner alongwith others at 2 o'clock at night going on a tractor-trolley with some cattle head. Submits that even if the statements of the said Wajtakkar witnesses be accepted, yet no case under section 302, P.P.C. can possibly be made out against the petitioner. The contentions,, have been opposed by learned counsel for the State.

2. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the file. The petitioner was neither named in the F.I.R. nor it is prosecution's case that he was present at the spot. So far the evidence collected against the petitioner is of two witnesses who saw him on the night of the commission of the offence 10/12 miles from the spot going on a tractor-trolley, with other co-accused. I asked the Investigating Officer specifically if there was any evidence which could connect the petitioner with the A commission of offence of murder, his reply was in the negative. In the absence of any evidence to the effect that the petitioner was present at the scene of occurrence or he had abetted the commission of the offence, it would be a case of further inquiry. Therefore, the petitioner is allowed bail provided he furnishes security in the sum of Rs.30,000 with two sureties in the like amount each, to the I satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate concerned. H.B.T./t i-319/1, Bail granted.