2002 PLP 1855 (YLR)

Petitioners seek post‑arrest bail in case F. I. R. No. 68, dated 19‑2‑2001 registered at Police Station Cantt. Multan under section 324/34, P.P.C.

2. Prosecution case is that during minority, Nikah of Mst. Shahnaz alias Shano, sister of the complainant was solemnized with Riaz Ahmad‑petitioner. Later on Riaz Ahmad married a girl of his choice, but inspite of having that wife he desired for the Rukhasti of Shahnaz to be his second wife which was declined. Mst. Shahnaz obtained a decree of dissolution of marriage.

3. On the day when her marriage was being celebrated and she as a bride was surrounded by women‑folk in the house of her parents, the petitioners alongwith their co‑accused Altaf Hussain, in furtherance of their common intention to kill her, came there with a "Garvi" a utensil containing acid. Altaf Hussain co‑accused started pouring acid on the bride, on hue and cry the complainant and the P.Ws rushed there and saw that Altaf Hussain while pouring acid on Mst. Shahnaz (bride) was saying that: The complainant tried to intervene whereupon Muhammad Nawaz‑petitioner raised a Lalkara that if anybody tried to come near he would also face the same consequence. Meanwhile Altaf Hussain also threw acid on Mst. Manzoor Mai paternal aunt of the bride as well as on Mst. Mansab Mai and thereafter he threw the said "Garvi" aiming at the complainant, resultantly, head face, arms and belly of the bride, chest and arms of Mst. Manzoor Mai, face and neck of Mst. Mansab Mai, right cheek, neck, left shoulder and belly of the complainant were badly injured and burnt.

4. It was argued by the petitioners counsel that it was only Altaf Hussain‑co accused who had thrown acid and no role has been ascribed to any of the petitioners; that section 324, P.P.C. is not attracted against the' petitioners; that they are behind the bars since February, 2001 but the trial has not concluded and that they have been falsely involved.

5. Bail petition is opposed by the State counsel. Arguments heard and record perused.

6. Both the petitioners are nominated in the F.I.R. it is mentioned therein that when the complainant tried to intervene, Muhammad Nawaz‑petitioner raised Lalkara that the intervener would also meet the same fate. Strong motive is attributed to Riaz Ahmed petitioner and the other two accused are his brothers. What was done by them strongly indicates that they also shared that motive. Prosecution version is fully supported by the statement of the P.Ws. and M.L.Rs. of the victims. Presence of the petitioners alongwith their co‑accused in the house of complainant and that too in the ladies portion itself speaks volumes that they had gone there uninvited in furtherance of their common intention for executing their evil design of doing away with the bride in a brutal manner on the day of her marriage.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has utterly failed to explain as to why the petitioners had gone to the house of the complainant on the day when marriage ceremony of his sister was being celebrated and that too in the room of the bride, if they had no concern with the crime or with their co‑accused.

8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the evidence collected by the prosecution, I am of the view that the criminal act was done by Altaf Hussain alongwith the petitioners in‑furtherance of their common intention whereby they made the young bride on the very day of her marriage, a living example of their brutality for the rest ot her life by permanently disfiguring her though luckily or unluckily she survived. Besides that Mst. Manzoor Mai (paternal aunt of the bride) Mst. Mansab Mai, and the complainant were also not only badly injured but were also disfigured permanently. In view of what was done by the petitioners they do not deserve the concession of bail. Bail petition is accordingly dismissed. Bail refused.