1986 PLP 2703 (MLD)

‑‑‑S.498‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/34 & 109‑‑Bail, grant of‑ Conspiracy alleged against accused‑‑No evidence of conspiracy except co‑accused having declared that he consulted accused‑‑No evidence available to show that co‑accused actually consulted accused‑‑Case for grant of bail, held, was made out and accused allowed bail in circumstances. Kh. Sarfraz Ahmad for Petitioner. Najam‑uz‑Zaman, Asstt. A.‑‑G. for the State,. Naeem Khan petitioner has moved this petition for bail in a case registered against him and others under section 302/109/34, P.P.C.

2. The F.I.R. version is that four days prior 31st January, 1981; Abdullah complainant, his brother Yunus and Siddiq son of Muhammad Sharif were present in the street in front of their house when co‑accused Muhammad Akram came there and asked Muhammad Yunus deceased to resist from pursuing the murder case of his brother Yasin Muhammad Yunus deceased replied that he would continue pursuing the said case, upon which co‑accused Akram advanced a threat that he would finish him after consulting his brother‑in‑law Sharif alias Pappu, and Naeem Khan petitioner and would not permit him to pursue the case. On 31st January, 1986 at 11 a.m. Abdullah complainant and Muhammad Yunus deceased were present on the western side of Old Civil Hospital, Silakot, when Mst. Shameem, wife of co‑accused Akram, came out of a car and shouted that Muhammad Yunus, the murderer of her brother and parents, was there and he should not be spared. At the same time Akram armed with a Kalashnkove rifle, and Asghar and Amjad armed with revolvers also came out of the car and co‑accused Akram fired his rifle causing injuries to Yunus deceased and two labourers, namely, Asghar and Rashid. Yunus succumbed to his injuries in the hospital and the other two died at the spot. Old enmity between the parties is stated to be the motive for the offence.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is absolutely no evidence with the prosecution to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence and he has been falsely implicated merely on suspicion. Learned Assistant Advocate‑General has opposed the prayer for bail. He, however, concedes that there is no evidence against the petitioner except the statements of Abdullah complainant and Muhammad Siddiq that co‑accused Akram had declared that he would kill Yunus deceased after consulting his brother‑in‑law Sharif alias Pappu and Naeem Khan petitioner in jail. On inquiry, he states that there is no evidence that the petitioner was ever consulted by any one for committing this murder. In the circumstances, I feel inclined to the view that a case for the grant of bail is made out. I, therefore, admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/ Duty Magistrate, Sialkot. S.A. Bail allowed.