1986 PLP 2697 (MLD)

Niamat Ali petitioner has moved this petition for cancellation of bail allowed to Allah Ditta respondent by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in a case registered against him and others under section 148 and 302/149 of the P.P.C. The bail was allowed on the ground that the respondent was not directly involved in the murder of the deceased.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it may be a good case for the grant of a post‑arrest bail but there was no justification for the grant of pre‑arrest bail for the reason that the respondent was armed with a hatchet and was fully aware that murder was likely to be committed. It is further submitted that after his release, the respondent advanced threats to Niamat Ali and has abused the concession of bail. The learned State counsel also supports the prayer for cancellation of bail.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that the allegations in the F.I.R. prima facie, show that the respondent only gave beating to Mukhtar and Gulzar P.Ws. and was not involved in the murder. It is submitted that even the statements of aforesaid P.Ws. are at variance so far as the role attributed to the respondent is concerned.

4. I have gone through the relevant material. The F.I.R. version is that on 2‑2‑1986 at 5 p.m. Allah Ditta respondent and co‑accused Ibrahim and Sultan gave beating to Gulzar and Mukhtar, brothers of Niamat Ali complainant and Ramzan deceased. On receiving information about this incident, Ramzan deceased came there and he too was beaten by the aforesaid accused persons. He started running followed by the aforesaid accused and Niamat Ali complainant. When he reached near the house of‑ Hanif, co‑accused Suba who, alongwith Abdul Hamid, was present on the back of the house of Ghulam Nabi, raised a Lalkara that Ramzan should be caught and killed upon which aforesaid Abdul Hamid fired at him hitting his chest. Ramzan ran towards his house but Abdul Hamid fired another shot hitting his right wrist as a result of which he fell down and died at the spot. Niamat Ali complainant hid himself in the corner of the house of Hanif. Thereafter, Ibrahim armed with a pistol, Sultan with a Barchi and Allah Ditta respondent with a hatchet ran away raising Lalkaras. In the F.I.R. it is not stated that the respondent and other co‑accused were armed at the time of incident of beating allegedly given to Gulzar and Mukhtar. The question whether the respondent had the knowledge that co‑accused Abdul Hamid was present with a gun near the house of Hanif and that the murder was likely to be committed is to be determined by the trial Court. The statements of Mukhtar and Gulzar regarding the role allegedly played by the respondent are inconsistent. Mukhtar stated that he gave a blow to Gulzar with the wrong side of the hatchet whereas Gulzar stated that he gave a hatchet blow to Mukhtar from the wrong side. Learned counsel has placed a copy of report No.10 of daily‑diary Police Station Kahna, wherein Niamat Ali P.W. has alleged that after his release on bail, Allah Ditta (respondent) had given threats of dire consequences in case he did not desist from pursuing the case. On inquiry, the Sub‑Inspector states that this report was not enquired into as the complainant did not turn up. In the circumstances, there is no ground for interference with the order granting bail. The petition is dismissed. S. A.??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed