1989 PLP 749 (MLD)

Ch. Muhammad Hussain Chhachhar for Petitioner. Sardar Munir Ahmad Gill for the State. Ghulam Safdar alias Gami petitioner has moved this petition for bail in a case registered against him and his brother Javed Iqbal under sections 307 and 32,4/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code.

2. The F.I.R. version is that on 27th June, 1987 at 4 am. Sarfraz Ahmad, son of Muhammad Akbar complainant, and his servant Muhammad Sarwar were sleeping in front of his Bethak when Ghulam Safdar petitioner and laved Iqbal came there and awakened Sarfraz. They took him to a nearby culvert where Javed Iqbal raised a Lalkara that he would not be spared because he had falsely accused them for theft. In the meantime, Muhammad Akbar complainant, Muhammad Sarwar, Muhammad Hanif, Muhamamd Sarwar son of‑Akbar and Manzw Hussain also reached the spot. Within their view co‑accused Javed Iqbal gave a Khanjar blow on the back of Sarfraz and Ghulam Safdar petitioner gave a Khanjar blow on his abdomen. Then both of them gave him numerous blows in quick succession. After causing the injuries, both the accused ran away from the spot,‑ Motive, as alleged in the F.I.R., was that some gold and silver was stolen from the shop of a goldsmith. The complainant and his son suspected Javed Iqbal for the said theft, due to which the accused harboured grudge against the complainant party.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the version contained in the F.I.R. is absolutely false and the fact of the matter is that on the night between 26th and 27th June, 1987 the petitioner woke up to find that his sister Mg. Sarwari was not on her cot. He awakened his brother Javed Iqbal and then both of them went out in search for her. They saw her in the company of Sarfraz coming out of Jantar crop: They chased Sarfraz. In the meantime, Mst. Sarwari ran away and took shelter m the house of her maternal‑grandparents who locked her in a room. Then both the accused caused injuries to Sarfraz under the impulse of grave and sudden provocation. Learned counsel submits that at best the case falls under section 335 or 308 of the Pakistan Penal Code, which are bailable. It is further submitted that petitioner was arrested on 13th July, 1987 and is in jail since then but his trial has not concluded so far. The learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail.

4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar in the light of material available on the record. The perusal of the file reveals that a number of persons appeared before the D.S.P. and supported the version of the accused. In the Zimni dated 11th July, 1987 it has been stated that the cause for this occurrence is not the same as mentioned by the complainant in the F.I.R. and in fact this occurrence had taken place due to illicit relations of the injured P.W. with the sister of the accused. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner is in jail since 13th July, 1987 and his trial has not concluded so far. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the case of either party, I admit him to bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Ilaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Qkara. SA./G‑210/L Bail allowed.