1983 P Cr (PLP)

S. 497-Bail, grant of-Murder-Occurrence a sudden affair and taking place when accused party tried to prevent complainant party from ploughing disputed piece of land-Questions that which of two parties in actual possession of disputed land and petitioners although inflicting no blow on deceased whether vicariously responsible for death of deceased yet to be determined at trial-Petitioners allowed bail, in circumstances. Ch. Muhammad Mehmood for Petitioners. Abul Pateh for the State. The petitioners, Muhammad Ashraf son of Muhammad Nazir and Muhammad Ahmad son of Shah Muhammad, have been arrested alongwith four others in a case registered under sections 148 and 302 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station, Alipur Chatha. The occurrence took place on 18th June. 1982 at 4-00 p. m. and was reported to the Police on the following day at 2-00 p. m. The allegations against the petitioners are that they together with their co-accused attacked Afzal deceased Abdul Qayyum and Perwaiz. As a result of the injuries received during the course of occurrence Afzal deceased died on the following day at 10-00 or 11-00 a.m., in the hospital. 2. The motive for the occurrence was a dispute over a piece of land. The occurrence took place at the time when the complainant party was ploughing the said land. It is not clear from the F. I. R. as to which of the two parties was in actual physical possession at the relevant time for the first informant has made somewhat apparently contradicting statements in this regard in the F. I. R. Admittedly before the dispute arose the accused party was in possession of the land in dispute. In the earlier part of the F. I. R. the first informant stated that the accused party had given the possession of the land to the complainant party before the panchayat. Later, when describing the conversation which preceded the attack on the complainant party he ascribed the following statement to the deceased Now waada is very different from the actual handing over of possession. 3. It will be, therefore, a serious question for consideration at the trial as to which of the two parties was in actual physical possession of the land at the relevant time. 4. It was not the case of the first informant that the petitioners had inflicted any blow on the deceased. The occurrence was a sudden affair and took place when the accused party tried to prevent the complainant party from ploughing the land. In the circumstances a question will arise at the trial if the petitioners are vicariously responsible for the death of the deceased. In the circumstances I think it is a fit case where the petitioners should be admitted to bail during the pendency of the trial. Let the petitioners be enlarged on bail on their executing bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Gujranwala. Bail allowed