2011 PLP 1640 (YLR)

AHMED ALI SHAIKH, J.

Through this application, applicant Achar Bhangwar seeks pre-arrest bail in Crime No.15 of 2010 of Police Station Sarhari for offences under sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 504, 137-H(2), 109, P.P.C. On 27-4-2010 complainant Abdul Reheem lodged the report in respect of an unhappy episode in which deceased Alam Khan lost his life. It is alleged that on 16-4-2010 at about 1530 hours, complainant, his brother Qaim, Muhammad Hashim and Alam Khan were present at their lands when accused Ghulam Nabi, Umer, Sikandar, Mir Hassan and Saifal duly armed with deadly weapons came there. After abusing the complainant party, they declared that they have been sent by Achar Bhangwar. Saying so, accused Ghulam Nabi made straight fire upon Alam Khan which hit him on his chest and fell down. Thereafter, accused went away by abusing the complainant party. Alam Khan succumbed to his injuries in the way to hospital. The motive of the alleged incident as disclosed in the F.I.R. is that there was dispute between the complainant party and accused Ghulam Nabi and others over the agricultural land. It is inter alia contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has no nexus with the alleged incident, neither the applicant was present at the place of incident nor caused any injury to the deceased. It is lastly contended that only allegation against the applicant is that on his instigation co-accused committed the murder of deceased. Learned A.P.-G. for the State did not controvert the contentions raised by learned counsel for applicant and conceded the bail plea of the applicant. Heard and perused. Upon perusal of F.I.R., it appears that accused Kirir, Hashim, Raheem, Qaim and Qasim committed the murder of deceased Saifal by causing him fire arm injuries. Neither the applicant was present at the time of occurrence nor any overt act is attributed to him. Per prosecution the co-accused while committing the murder of deceased Saifal disclosed that they have been sent by present applicant. Since the applicant was neither present at the place of occurrence nor any role is assigned to him and the only evidence against the present applicant is mere words of co-accused that they have been sent by applicant which is in admissible piece of evidence and cannot be relied upon. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered view that case of applicant requires further inquiry. Consequently, interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicant on 21-6-2010 is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions. H.B.T./A-1/K Bail confirmed.