1989 PLP 4402 (MLD)

Muhammad Sharif Sahi for the Complainant. Azhar Javed for State. Petitioner seeks bail in the case registered against him and three others under section 302/34 P.P.C. at Police Station, City, Toba Tek Singh on 27‑6‑1988.

2. According to F.I.R. Mst. Khurshid Bibi wife of the complainant and his daughter Mst. Naziran had gone to fetch water from the Government water‑tap. Shamim, a co‑accused of the petitioner was present there for the same purpose. When the wife and daughter of the complainant started tilling water in their pitchers, Mst. Shamim objected and told them that since their house was near the water‑tap, she was entitled to take first turn for taking water, whereupon they quarrelled with each other. Mst. Shamim after filling her pitcher with water went home. Thereafter Mst. Khurshid wife of the complainant and Mst. Naziran his daughter also started for home with water‑filled pitchers on their heads. When they reached near the house of Mst. Shamim, Mumtaz, Taj, Riaz petitioner and Mst. Shamim came out armed with brick bats. Mumtaz accused threw a brickbat on Mst. Khurshid Bibi which struck her on the right eye, Taj accused threw a brick bat on Mst. Khurshid which struck her on the chest, and Riaz petitioner threw a brick‑bat which had struck her on the back. She fell down, whereafter she was given kicks and fist blows by Mst. Shamim, as a result of which she suffered injuries on the abdomen and face. Taj accused inflicted fist blows to Mst. Naziran. The accused went away on arrival of the witnesses. Mst. Khurshid Bibi died on the same day.

3. Bail is being sought by the petitioner on the grounds that the doctor had failed to specify the cause of death; that the viscera and other parts of the body sent to the Chemical Examiner also did not prove that the death had occurred due to poisoning etc.; that the petitioner has been assignee a simple injury; that the fact that the attack is said to have been launched by brickbats, itself makes out that no preparation was made by the petitioner to commit the murder and that he is in jail for the last about ten months.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant/State have opposed the grant of bail, and contended that the doctor on an application submitted by the Police had expressed opinion on 16‑10‑88 that the death had occurred in his opinion due to injury on the chest; that the accused had launched attack after waylaying the deceased and her daughter, after making preparations; that there was no reason for the complainants to have falsely involved the petitioner in the case and that he had common intention to commit the murder.

5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the doctor initially had not expressed any opinion about the cause of death, is borne out from the record. The opinion, expressed by the doctor, on 16‑10‑1988, i.e. four months after the occurrence also does not specify as to what damage had been done by the infliction of injury on the chest, to the relevant parts of the body. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the injury ascribed to the petitioner was a simple one. The fact that he had not come to the spot armed with any weapon like hatchet, Dang or firearm, lends support to the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that he cannot be burdened with the liability of having come to the spot with premeditated intention to commit murder For all the reasons enumerated above, reasonable grounds do not appear at this stage against the petitioner of having committed the offence charged with. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rupees twenty thousand with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Toba Tek Singh. S.A/R‑157/L. Bail allowed.