1986 P Cr (PLP)

Naweed Shaharyar for the State. Date of hearing: 23rd April, 1985: Jan Muhammad and his son Mukhtar Ahmad petitioners have moved this petition for bail in a case registered against them and their co‑accused Ejaz alias Jajji under section 302/109, P.P.C.

2. The prosecution version is that on 31st October, 1984 at 12‑30 noon co‑accused Ejaz alias Jajji, son of Jan Muhammad petitioner challenged Ghulam Nabi deceased that he had come to take revenge and simultaneously fired two shots at him hitting his right flank and back as a result of which he died at the spot. Motive for the crime was that nine years prior to the occurrence Mukhtar Ahmad petitioner was injured and the deceased and his son Muhammad Aslam complainant were challaned. The matter was, however, compromised and they were acquitted. It is alleged that three months prior to the occurrence the petitioners and their co‑accused advanced a threat of revenge to the complainant when he was on way to his house in the company of Bashir Ahmad. Fifteen days before the occurrence they again extended a similar, threat to the complainant in the presence of Ghulam Rasul P.W. According to the prosecution, the murder was committed by Ejaz alias Jajji at the instance of the petitioners.

3. The petitioners were admitted to anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide order, dated 3rd January, 1985. The same was cancelled by this Court on 6th March, 1985 on the ground that the bail application made in the Sessions Court did not contain any allegation that the intended arrest was tainted with mala fide.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are not alleged to have participated in the actual occurrence and the only allegation against them is that the murder was committee at their instance but there is no evidence to support this allegation. He further submitted that the complainant had not lodged any report about the threats allegedly given to him by the accused persons prior to the occurrence and the petitioners have been falsely implicated due to previous enmity. The learned State counsel did not oppose the prayer for bail.

5. The learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioners were released on interim bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, on 11th November, 1984 and the same was confirmed on 3rd January, 1985; on 2nd December, 1984 Ghulam Rasul A.S.‑I. who was present in the Court premises for producing the record of this case before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, apprehended Azmat Ali (son of Jan Muhammad petitioner and brother of Mukhtar Ahmad petitioner) and recovered unlicensed .12 bore carbine from him on the 6th January, 1985 both the petitioners went to the police station where Muhammad Aslam complainant was already present and tried to assault him under the very nose of the S.H.O. It submitted that the petitioners are desperadoes and, if released on bail they will abuse the, concession.

6. I have gone through the relevant material and given my careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners are not alleged to have participated in the actual occurrence. However, according to the prosecution the murder was committed at their instance. A copy of F.I.R. No. 931, dated 2‑12‑1984, under section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 has been placed on the file which shows that on the said date i.e. 2‑12‑1984 Ghulam Rasul, A.S.‑I. was present in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, for producing the record when he received secret information that Azamat All was carrying unlicensed arms. He apprehended Azmat Ali in the Court premises and recovered an unlicensed carbine from him. A copy of Calendra under section 107/151, Cr.P.C., dated 6‑1‑1985 is also on the file which shows that on the said date Jan Muhammad and Mukhtar Ahmad petitioners went to police Station, Satiana, where Muhammad Aslam complainant was already present. Both the parties flared up on seeing each other and exchanged hot words in the presence of the S.H.O. They were about to attack each other but he arrested them under section 151, Cr.P.C. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to extend the concession of bail to the petitioners. The petition is dismissed: S. A. Petition dismissed.