2003 P Cr (PLP)

3. The motive behind the occurrence is that on 21-10-2001 Muhammad Saeed, the son‑in‑law of Ahmad Ali accused was murdered case F.I.R. No.559 of 2001 under section 302/34, P.P.C. was registered at Police Station Saddar, Pakpattan Sharif against Shah Muhammad her husband and others. They (accused) on account of grudge over the same have committed the Qatl‑e‑Amd of her said son.

4. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in that according to the F.I.R. he has fired straight shot with .222 bore rifle at the deceased hitting on his upper side of knee of the left thigh while in the private complaint brought by her (complainant) in respect of that occurrence, she did not mention so and rather only that much that he did fire with rifle at the deceased and so there is conflict in the narration of the F.I.R. and the story in her complaint as regards his role and the same brings his case within the purview of further inquiry into his guilt; that he is behind the bars for the last about one year and so far his trial has not commenced even and that he is previous non‑convict.

5. Conversely, the learned State Counsel assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the petition on the ground that he is named in the F.I.R. that according to the same he has fired straight shot with .222 bore rifle at the deceased hitting on the upper side of his knee of the left thigh and that the offence is covered under the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.

7. According to the F.I.R., he has fired straight shot with .222 bore rifle at Shan deceased hitting on his upper side of knee of the left thigh.

8. The complainant has admittedly brought private complaint under sections 302/148/149, P.P.C. against Ahmad Ali and others regarding the same occurrence as is mentioned in the instant F.I.R. In para. 3 of the private complaint, she as regards his role has mentioned as under:‑‑

9. While as is obvious from the above position that in the F.I.R. that fire‑arm injury on deceased's such part of the body is attributed to him (petitioner). The above quoted words in her complaint show that she had not mentioned therein that on which part of the deceased's body had hit his that fire. While it is interesting to note that she in the same para. of her said complaint had attributed fire shot with .12 bore gun at the deceased to his co‑accused Muhammad Akhtar hitting on front side of his left thigh, which went through and through. The same is reproduced hereinbelow verbatim for facility of reference:‑‑ She has owned to have brought private complaint against, the accused nominated in the F.I.R.

10. So there is apparent conflict in the narration of the F.I.R. as regards his role in the commission of the alleged offence and the private complaint brought by her as indicated above.

11. The same as necessitated further inquiry into his guilt. Hence, his case is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.

12. He is stated to be behind the bars for the last about one year and. so far his trial has not commenced even. He is also stated to be previous non‑convict.

13. In these circumstances, I find him entitled to bail. The petition, therefore, is accepted and he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail Bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./A-836/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted