1985 P Cr (PLP)

A.R. Tayyib for the Complainant. Ch. Nazir Ahmad Bhatti for the State. Date of hearing: 20th January, 1985. This bail petition has been filed on behalf of Abdul Maalik petitioner who alongwith 3 others stands challaned for the murder of Arshad All committed on 14‑12‑1983 in the vicinity of Chak No. 74/P within the jurisdiction of Police Station Kot Samaba, District Rahimyar Khan.

2. According to the prosecution Arshad All (deceased) on the day of occurrence at 5. p.m was waylaid by the petitioner and his co‑accused Shabbir and ldrees armed with Sotas and Ghulam Abbas armed with spear and caused him as many as 14 injuries. The role attributed to the petitioner was that he alongwith Shabbir and Idrees gave stick blows on different parts of the body of the deceased including the buttock and lumber region. The occurrence was witnessed by Ghulam Rasul complainant, Muhammad Yaqoob and Muhammad Sadiq P.Ws. The deceased was removed in injured condition to the hospital, where he died at 8.0 p.m. The medical witness observed extensive ecchymosis marks in the lumber region and underneath it, left kidney and spleen were found ruptured which resulted in the death of the deceased.

3. The petitioner had sought bail previously by filing Crl. Misc. No. 297/B/84/BWP. On the ground that he had no direct motive whatsoever against the deceased. That the injuries to the petitioner do not show that they were sufficient to cause death of the deceased and that the S.H.O and D.S.P had found the petitioner innocent. It was also urged that one Punoo who claimed to have seen the occurrence stated before Investigating Officer that the petitioner had not participated in the occurrence. Having considered all these contentions in detail, I had declined bail to the petitioner vide my order, dated 16‑4‑1984.

4. The petitioner has again approached this Court for the grant of bail allegedly on fresh grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the time of the rejection of the earlier petition, the case was still under investigation but now the Grime Branch, Lahore, having concluded its investigation clearly found the petitioner innocent and placed him in column No. 2 of the challan and that the finding of D.S.P. Crime Branch, Lahore, is supported by the overwhelming evidence. It is further submitted that one Muhammad Hussain a leader of the complainant party had illegally grabed the lands of one Mst. Sakina, and because the petitioner helped Mat. Sakina, therefore, he has been falsely involved in the ease, It is further submitted that three respectables of the complainant party namely Khan Rafi Ullah, Rao Younus and Ghulam Nabi Cheema were asked by the Investigating Officer to take oath as to the implication of the petitioner in the occurrence who declined which shows that the complainant party itself was not morally convinced that the petitioner was really among the assailants of Arshad Ali deceased and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the grant of bail. Reliance has been placed on Iqbal v. The State 1983 P Cr. L J 2496 and Amir Ali v. The State‑ 1984 S C M R

521. As against this learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state as well as for the complainant have vehemently opposed the petition saying that the finding of innocence given by D.S.P. Crime Branch, Lahore is not supported by any material on record and that mere fact that the petitioner has been placed in column No. 2 does not necessarily entitle the petitioner to be released on bail, if the finding of innocence is not based on sound material. Reliance has been placed on Muhammad Afzal v. Nazir Ahmad and others 1984 S C M R 429.

5. I have carefully considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the case‑law cited at the Bar. In Amir Ali's case supra 1984 3 C M R 521 the bail was granted to the accused who was found to have not participated in the occurrence by the D.S.P. because large number of witnesses had testified before him that accused was not present at the relevant time at the spot, whereas in the present case., except Punoo, nobody else has talked about non‑participation of the petitioner. Punoo's evidence was considered by me at length in my earlier order and, therefore, to consider the same afresh is not necessary. In the circumstances of the case, therefore, conduct of Raft Ullah etc. in declining to take oath as to the implication of the petitioner is also of no consequence. Resultantly I find that the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of bail who has been named in the F.I.R. as assailant of the deceased which allegation is further supported by three eye‑witnesses.

6. For the foregoing reasons this petition has no merit and the same is therefore dismissed. M. Z. M.????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.