1982 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑‑ S. 497

Bail

‑ [Murder‑case) --‑ In F. I. R. injuries to deceased attributed to accused applicant whereas during investi gation and in Police challan petitioner charged with joint liability bringing case under S. 34, Penal Code‑--No evidence against applicant recorded by trial Court so far‑Bail allowed, in 6ircum stances. Ch. Muhammad Taj for Applicant. Rafique Mahmood Khan, A. A.‑G. for the State. Date of institution : 10th February, 1982. A case under section 5 of the Islaami Tazeerati Act read with sec tion 34 of the Penal Code is pending before the District Criminal Court, Mirpur in which two persons namely Altaf Hussain and the accused applicant Muhammad Arif are involved. According to the prosecution, Altaf Hussain is the main offender and the applicant is charged for the joint liability under section 5 of the Islaami Tazeerati Act read with section 34 of the Penal Code. A labourer Mushtaq by name is said having been turned out of a Mill where he was engaged as labourer and this removal was attributed to Muhammad Razzaq deceased who was wielding some control over the labourers in the Mill known as China Mill. Both the accused are alleged to have close relations with Muhammad Mushtaq and so they were not happy with the deceased who was alleged to have beer killed by Altaf Hussain accused while his hands were held by the accused‑applicant. In the F. I. R. the injuries inflicted with a sharp weapon upon the person of the deceased causing his death thereof were attributed to the accused‑applicant and there was no charge of holding the deceased therein against him. But in the investigation and thereafter on presentation of the challan to the. Court, he was charged with the joint liability, bringing the case against him under section 34, P. C. As many as thirteen persons are cited as eye‑witnesses. I have gone through their statements recorded by the police under section 161, Cr. P. C. because no evidence against the accused so far has been recorded by .the trial Court. The challan was presented in the trial Court on 4th November, 1981 and the trial Court for one reason or the other was unnecessarily prolonging the case for evidence. For me, at this stage, it will not be proper to appreciate the evidence before the Police. However, looking at the first information report and the evidence recorder: thereafter by the Police, I feel that it may be a proper case for allowing bail to the accused‑applicant. Therefore, this application is accepted and 't the accused‑applicant is allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each who shall be liable individually as well as collectively and the personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Additional District Magistrate, Mirpur. Bail allowed.