1987 P Cr (PLP)

Masud Mirza for Petitioners. Mian Muhammad Bashir for the State. Date of hearing: 25th March, 1987. This is a petition for bail on behalf of Iqbal, Nawaz and Aslam, sons of Ahman, who alongwith two others are involved in a case under sections 148, 302 and 307/ 149, P.P.C.

2. The prosecution version is that on 26th August, 1986 at about noon time Mst. Fateh and her husband Muhammad Bakhsh were present in their Ihata when co‑accused Aliman armed with a Phhaura, Iqbal and Nawaz petitioners armed with hatchets, Aslam petitioner and co‑accused Shahadat armed with Sotas came there raising Lalkaras. Ahman gave a chhura blow on the head of Muhammad Bakhsh. Iqbal gave a hatchet blow from the wrong side which also landed on the head. Then Nawaz gave him a hatchet blow on his buttocks and Aslam gave him a Sota blow on the forehead. Mst. Fateh tried to rescue him but co‑accused Shahadat gave her a Sota blow in her head‑ The occurrence was witnessed by Khadim and Manzur P.W. Muhammad Bakhsh was taken to the hospital in injured condition where he expired on the same day at 6‑45 p.m. The motive for the occurrence was that a Punchayat passed a decree for Rs.300 against Muhammad Bakhsh deceased. A few hours prior to the occurrence there was an exchange of abuses between the deceased and the accused persons due to aforesaid decree.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the allegations in the F.I.R. are absolutely false and the fact of the matter is that Muhammad Bakhsh owed Rs.300 to the accused party. The petitioners went to his house and demanded the amount but he got annoyed and gave a hatchet blow on the head of Iqbal petitioner, as a result of which he fell down. Nawaz petitioner tried to rescue him but the deceased gave him a hatchet blow on the head and, in the meantime, their father co‑accused Ahman reached the spot and gave Phhaura blows to the deceased in order to rescue his sons. It is submitted that Iqbal and Nawaz were having very serious injuries on their persons which have been suppressed in the F.I.R. The learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel forl the parties in the light of material available on the file. There were five injuries on the deceased which have been attributed to the three petitioners and their father co‑accused Ahman, Iqbal and Nawaz petitioners were medically examined on the same day at 6‑30 p.m. Their medical reports have been placed on the file which show that Iqbal was having an incised wound 10 c.m. x 4 c.m. x bone cut on the right side of the head, amputating the right ear and cutting a piece of bone from the mastoid process with severe bleeding. The injury was grievous in nature. Nawaz petitioner had an incised wound 4 c.m x 1 c.m. x skull deep on the right side of head. This injury was kept under observation. There is a complete suppression of these injuries in the F.I.R. Injuries being on vital parts, particularly one on the person of Iqbal petitioner, could not have been caused by a friendly hand, The petitioners were allegedly armed with hatchets but all the injuries on the dead body had been caused by blunt weapon. In the F.I.R. it was stated that Iqbal petitioner used the hatchet from wrong side, but there is no such explanation about Nawaz petitioner who was also armed with a hatchet. In the circumstances, I feel inclined to the view that the case of the petitioners needs further inquiry. I, therefore, admit them to bail in the sum of Rs.25,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Jhang. S.A./I‑26/L.???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.