1989 PLP 644 (MLD)

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 307/34‑‑Bail, grant of Accused allegedly holding deceased when co‑accused fired at him‑‑Accused suffering no injury in incident‑‑Story creating doubt as to manner in which occurrence was committed‑‑Case of accused requiring further inquiry‑‑Bail allowed in circumstances. Mian Ahmed Sher Lali for Petitioner. Irfan Qadir, A.A.‑G. for the State. The petitioner prays for bail in a case registered against him and another with Police Station Chiniot, under section 302/307/34, P.P.C The allegation against the petitioner is that he married Mst. Faiz Bibi daughter of .the first informant about five years before the occurrence. The relations between the spouses became strained therefore, the first informant decided to .bring hiss daughter to his house. On 21‑5‑1988, at about 8 p.m., the first informant alongwith his sons Malik Sher, Ahmed Sher and Haji Shamand his brother went to the house of the petitioner. When they were about 20;Karams from the house of the petitioner, co‑accused Arif armed with .12 bore gun and the petitioner empty‑handed came out of their house and raised Lalkara that if anybody came near them, he would be done to death. Malik Sher son of the petitioner insisted that they would take their sister from them whereupon the petitioner is alleged to have held Malik Sher in his clasp whereas Arif co‑accused fired his .12 bore gun hitting on the back side of the shoulder of the petitioner. The fire passed through the body of Malik Sher and a stray pallet hit the first informant on his left arm. Malik Sher died at the spot because of the said injury. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, that the prosecution story as given in the F.I.R. is not believable at all. Submits that the co‑accused of the petitioner who is his real brother could never fire at the deceased when he was being held in case by the petitioner. Submits that according to the first informant the fire shot passed through the body of the deceased; if the petitioner had held the deceased in his clasp he should have been injured as well but no injury was found on the person of the petitioner. The contentions have been opposed by the learned counsel for the State.

2. I have heard learned counsel and perused the record. It is admitted in the F.I.R. that the petitioner held the deceased in his clasp and thereafter the co accused fired. This in itself is very unnatural. The absence of any injury on the person of the petitioner further creates a doubt about the manner in which the occurrence was committed. I feel these circumstances make the case of the petitioner of further inquiry which entitles the petitioner to the concession of bail. Therefore, the petitioner is allowed bail provided he furnishes security in the sum of Rs.25,000 with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Jhang. SA./S‑357/L Bail allowed.