1994 PLP 867 (MLD)

This bail application has been filed on behalf of Ghulam Nabi son of Ghulam Sarwar who has been sent up for trial for offences under section 302/34 P.P.C. and 13-D, Arms Ordinance in Crime No. 86/93 of Police Station Mirokhan, District Larkana. A bail application was moved on his behalf before the trial Court but the same was rejected by the learned trial Judge vide his order dated 1-12-1903 and as such he has filed this application before this Court. The brief facts as mentioned in the F.I.R. lodged by one Peroze son of Baharo Mastoi are that about four years before the incident he got his daughter married with the present applicant/accused Ghulam Nabi. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the first informant had gone to the house of his daughter at Shahdadkot and found her lying ill having some marks of kick and fist blows on her body. She informed him that her husband Ghulam Nabi had beaten her and as a result of which she had fallen ill and her husband was not even prepared to get her treated. Meanwhile the present applicant Ghulam Nabi also came there and asked the complainant to take away his daughter for treatment. Accordingly the complainant took away his daughter to his house. After a few days the applicant came to the house of complainant to take back his wife on which the complainant asked him to furnish some surety for not maltreating his daughter again. The accused got annoyed and threatened him that neither his daughter will remain alive nor there would be any necessity for giving any surety. It is alleged that on the night of incident at about 1-00 a.m. the complainant was sleeping alongwith his wife Mst. Fatima, his daughter Mst. Sharifan and his nephew Rato in his house when he woke up on the barking of dogs and saw on the torch and moonlight Ghulam Sarwar armed with pistol, Imam Bux armed with gun and Ghulam Nabi armed with hatchet standing near Mst. Sharifan. On his enquiry as to why they had come there the accused fired upon his daughter Mst. Sharifan on account of which she fell down. The present applicant is alleged to have given them threats not to go near them as they would also be murdered. On account of fear they did not follow them. Mst. Sharifan, on account of fire-arm injuries sustained by her, died in their presence on the spot. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the State. I have also gone through the entire material which has been placed before me. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is that since the applicant has not caused any injury on the person of Mst. Sharifan, as such he is entitled to the grant of bail as according to him the case of the applicant requires further inquiry. The learned counsel for the State has strongly opposed the grant of bail to the applicant/accused. On the basis of the tentative assessment of evidence which has been produced before the Court for consideration of this bail application I find that all the three accused including the present applicant Ghulam Nabi had come to the house of the complainant in furtherance of their common intention duly armed with deadly weapons. The present applicant had the motive and in fact all the accused came to the village of the complainant from a far-off place at night time. As such it is clear that all the accused had common intention to commit the murder of Mst. Sharifan. It is clear from the evidence that the other two accused who fired upon the deceased also did so in furtherance o common intention of all the accused and by application of section 34, P.P.C. the present applicant is equally liable for the commission of the main offence i.e. murder. According to section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of common intention o all each one of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it was done by him alone. In view of these circumstances I do not find that any case has bee made out at this stage by the applicant for being released on bail. Accordingly the bail application was dismissed by a short order dated 16-1-1994 and the9 are the reasons for the same. N.H.Q./G-362/K Bail refused.