1991 PLP 1630 (SCMR)

ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.‑‑On 3‑51990 at 5‑45 a.m. a case under section 302/148/149, P.P.C. was registered at Police Station Renala Khurd, District Okara on the statement of Muhammad Aslam that he was resident of Chak No.18/IL. He and his brother‑in‑law Muhammad' Arshad were jointly carrying on business of brick‑kiln. Similarly, Muhammad Ibrahim resident of Chak No.20/2L, Nek Muhammad (petitioner) and Sher Muhammad residents of Chak No.21/2L, also carried on the same business of brick‑kiln. One Nazir Ahmed was working as a labourer in his brick‑kiln and former's cousin Muhammad Din was working as a Mistri in the brick‑kiln of Nek Muhammad Nazir Ahmed had obtained a sum of Rs.6,000 in advance for work but he would not turn up to work. A day before Eid, Muhammad Arshad (deceased) called Nazir Ahmad and asked him either to return the money or work for the brick kiln. The latter became insolent. Muhammad Arshad being enranged gave him 2/3 slaps. 4/5 days earlier to the occurrence, one Kali came from the brick‑kiln of Ibrahim and Sher Muhammad to their brick‑kiln who owed Rs.3,300 to Sher Muhammad and Ibrahim. Therefore, next day, Nek Muhammad, Ibrahim shareholders came to the complainant's brick‑kiln and asked Muhammad Arshad to either return their laboureer or the amount. Muhammad Arshad gave Rs.2,000 and promised to pay the balance by the evening. Thereupon Nek Muhammad and Ibrahim became angry and said they will go away also on receipt of the full amount. On this hot words were exchanged between Muhammad Arshad and Nek Muhammad, Ibrahim. Arshad gave 2/3 slaps ton Ibrahim. They became quiet but while going back said that they would take revenge in few days. On the day of occurrence, it is stated, that the complainant was sleeping in the house of his brother‑in‑law Muhammad Arshad where his sister. Mst. Siddiqan Bibi and Muhammad Irshad brother of Muhammad Arshad were also sleeping. Electric light was on. in the court yard. At about 3:30 in the night Muhammad Ibrahim armed with carbine, Nek Muhammad petitioner armed with a .12 bore gun, Sher Muhammad and Nazir Ahmed and Muhammad Din armed with Sotas came there. Nek Muhammad, Nazir Ahmed caught hold of Muhammad Arsbad from his legs, and Sher Muhammad and Muhammad Din by his hands. Ibrahim who was armed With carbine started giving blows with its handle near the ear of Muhammad Arshad. Muhammad Irshad raised noise. The complainant, Muhammad Arshad's brother Muhammad Trshad, his own sister Mst. Siddiqan Bibi woke up. They all raised alarm, whereupon Dil Muhammad, Ashraf, Ghulam Muhammad of the village came up and saw the occurrence. His sister moved forward to intervene. Nck Muhammad caught hold of her by cars and jolted. Her cars were punctured. They all moved to intervene but were threatened by Ibrahim etc. that if they dared they would end up like Muhammad Arshad. The latter died of the injuries. Nekk Muhammad petitioner alongwith Sher Muhammad filed an application for bail before the Sessions Judge, Okara, which was dismissed on 11‑11‑1990. Then they applied for bail vide Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2848/B of 1990 in the Lahore High Court, Lahore. The err‑accused Sher Muhammad was granted bail but petitioner's application was dismissed. This is vide order dated 25‑9-1990. He then applied for bail alongwith Nazir Ahmad and Muhammad Din. On his behalf it was urged inter alia that he was found innocent in three successive investigations. On behalf of the other two, it was submitted that they had caused no injury to any person. The latter were allowed bail but not the petitioner. This is vide order dated 13‑2‑1991. Hence this petition on behalf of Nek Muhammad.

2. Which the Petition came up for hearing on 17‑3‑1991, notice was issued to the learned Advocate‑General to appear as to why the petition be not converted into appeal and disposed of accordingly. The learned Advocate -General has appeared. He submitted that it is true that three successive Investigating Officers have found the petitioner innocent.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Advocate‑General. The petitioner is not alleged to have caused any injury to the deceased. In all the circumstances of the case it appears that the precise liability of the petitioner is a matter of further inquiry in terms of section 497 Cr.P.C. Therefore, he is allowed bail in the sum bf Rs.25,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Okara. M.A.K./N‑289/S Bail granted.