1989 PLP 4795 (MLD)

Zakir Ali petitioner, alongnvith his mother, his sister and his brother, stands accused of an offence punishable a/s 302/34, P.P.C. for the alleged murder of one Muhammad Ramzan deceased. The said allegations were made the basis of an F.I.R. bearing No.297 dated 13‑6-1988 of Police Station, Ichhra. At the instance of one Bashir Ahmad.

2. According to this F.I.R., Muhammad Ramzan deceased used to shay the house with the accused party and in the process, developed illicit liaison with Mst. Sardaran Bibi, the mother and co‑accused of the present petitioner. It is also stated in the F.I.R. itself that Mst. Sardaran Bibi, the mother of the present petitioner had started living with Muhammad Ramzan deceased as his wife. As a result of the agitation on the part of the Mohalladars, Mst. Sardaran Bibi aforesaid took divorce from her husband, namely. Mehar Din and entered into a proper marriage with Muhammad Ramzan deceased. It also transpires from the said F.I.R., that at about 2.00 a.m. on the night of occurrence, the complainant, who lives across the street from the place of occurrence, heard hue and cry from the said place and on reaching the house in question, found that Mst. Sardaran Bibi was holding her husband Muhammad Ramzan deceased in Japha, while Zakir Ali petitioner was, holding the deceased from his arms, Liaquat co‑accused was inflicting 'Churi' blows on the person of the deceased and Mst. Zahida co -accused was raising 'Lalkaras' that Muhammad Ramzan should be done to death.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely roped in the case; that the entire family of the petitioner including his r mother, sister and brother, have been maliciously implicated in the occurrence in question and that the F.I.R. itself alleges that the petitioner's mother had illicit liaison with the deceased and it is strange that the petitioner or his brother did not take any steps during the subsistence of this illicit liaison and killed the deceased only after the illicit liaison had culminated into a marriage. Adds that the prosecution story is implausible as on the one hand it is alleged that Mst. Sardaran Bibi, the mother and the co‑accused of the petitioner had immoral liaison with the deceased and on the other hand, it is alleged that it was Mst. Sardaran Bibi herself, who had caused the murder of Muhammad Ramzan deceased alongwith her children from the first marriage. Submits that the only part attributed to the petitioner is the holding of the arms of the deceased who was being already held in a japha by his co‑accused. It is further submitted that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last over one year and the trial against him hits not yet concluded. The learned counsel further states that the trial was fixed for the recording of evidence but was adjourned on account of the non‑availability of evidence and the next date is fixed in the month of September, 1989.

4. The learned counsel for the State opposes the grant of bail on the grounds that the petitioner is specifically named in the F.I.R. A specific role has been attributed to him and the trial against him and his co‑accused has since commenced.

5. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner do persuade me to release the petitioner on bail. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court S.A./Z.120,/L Bail granted.