1995 P Cr (PLP)

Abdul Latif, Manzoor Hussain, Muhammad Mansha, Nazir Ahmad and Muhammad Sarfraz petitioners have applied for post-arrest bail in a case registered against them vide F.I.R. No.191/93, dated 27-6-1993 under sections 301/149, 109, P.P.C. at Police Station Burjwala, District Sahiwal, through Criminal Miscellaneous Nos.1442/B of 1994, 1951/B of 1994 and Criminal Miscellaneous Nos.33/B of 1995 which will be disposed of by a single order.

2. Brief facts of the case arising out of F.I.R. are that at the instance of Ghulam Nabi son of Nathu the above mentioned F.I.R. was lodged wherein according to his version his son Aamer Waheed and Sarfraz Head Constable were done to death by the police party on patrol duty headed by Muhammad Akram, Inspector C.I.A. on 5-6-1993 at 9-30 p.m. The allegations against the petitioners are that they were members of the raiding party and were travelling in the vehicle from which both the deceased were shot at and have died. Police investigated the case and all the members of the raiding party were made accused.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are innocent and had not committed any offence; that the petitioners had not fired at any of the deceased. In fact the petitioners were empty-handed. Hence, they did not share common intention with their co -accused against whom there is an allegation of having shot at and killed both the deceased; that the case was investigated by D.S.P./S.D.P.O. Arifwala and S.P. Crimes and both of them were unanimous that the only fault of the petitioners is that they did not restrain their co-accused from firing at both the deceased: that the petitioners being Constable and Head Constable, how could they advise the Inspector Incharge of patrol party and they cannot be made criminally liable for the alleged offence; that it is an admitted fact that both the deceased had lost their lives because of the firing made by Ijaz Ahmad, Constable from his pistol while Mahmood and Khalid Iqbal also fired at the deceased. AD the three mentioned above had fired and they had admitted this fact before various Investigating Officers. The petitioners cannot be burdened with having shared common intention with them and requests for the grant of bail to the petitioners.

4. The contentions are opposed by learned State counsel as well as Ch. Muhammad Saleem Akhtar, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

5. I have heard the arguments and gone through the file. The petitioners did not fire at any of the deceased because they were empty-handed, therefore, how they can be held sharing common intention with their co-accused against whom there are allegations of having shot at and killing both the deceased. The petitioners were on their official duty. How the petitioners can stop or restrain a Senior Officer being subordinate to them. They can be best termed as natural. A witness of the occurrence. This being the position the matter requires further enquiry and the petitioners are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) each with one surety E each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Sahiwal.

6. The observations made in the above order shall not affect the merits of the case. N.H.Q./A-769/L Bail granted.