2002 PLP 3042 (YLR)

Mian Muhammad Akram for the Complainant. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman for the State. Date of hearing: 12th February, 2002. Petitioners seeks bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No.356 of 2001 dated, 3‑9‑2001, under sections 302/109/148/149, P.P.C. Police Station Luddan, District Vehari, registered on the statement of Muhammad Amin who alleged that on the fateful night the complainant's, father Khan Muhammad did not come back home, the effort was made to search him, that when the complainant alongwith the P.Ws. reached near the Daira of Luqman he heard some noise and found that M/s Allah Ditta armed with Sota, Wahab armed with Sota, Allah Ditta son of Muhammad Yar armed with hatchet, Shafi armed with Sota had encircled his father and within his view they gave him blows on various parts of his body and raised lalkara that if anybody tried to save him he too would be done to death. After causing the injuries Wahab accused strangulated complainant's father where-after he died at the spot. It was further alleged that the afore- referred accused had killed complainant's father with the abetment of Manzoor and Haqnawaz petitioners. The motive alleged was that the accused had suspicion that Khan Muhammad had illicit relations with the sister‑in‑law of Allah Ditta accused namely Rehmat Bibi wife of Ghulam Muhammad.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks bail on the ground that no effective role is attributed to the petitioners, that there is no tenable evidence of abduction against the petitioners, that they are not connected with the motive part of the prosecution story, that petitioner No. 1 is above 55 years of age whereas petitioner No.2 is above 70 years of age.

3. Learned counsel for the complainant and state have opposed the petition by submitting that the petitioners abetted the offence, that there are two witnesses namely Sher Muhammad and Sardar Muhammad who clearly stated that they heard the accused conspiring the afore‑referred murder and that since the offences alleged falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and no case for bail at this stage is made out.

4. Heard.

5. Admittedly, no effective role is attributed to the petitioner in causing death or Khan Muhammad. The statements of Sher Muhammad and Sardar Muhammad have been perused. Both have given one version that a few days prior to the occurrence they saw the accused sitting under `Berry' tree and conspiring the murder of Khan Muhammad as he had become nuisance for them and that he had insulted their women‑folk. There is no mention of the motive part of the prosecution story in the afore‑referred statements. There is no explanation as to why both these witnesses remained mum for a couple of days and did not inform the complainant or police about the conspiracy of murder of Khan Muhammad. Even otherwise, prima facie, it is repellent to commonsense that the accused would conspire at an open place and within the hearing of these witnesses.

6. For what has been discussed above, the question of petitioners' guilt would require further enquiry. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and subject to petitioners' furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court they shall be released on bail. H.B.T./M‑1193/L Bail granted.