1983 PCr (PLP)

This bail application has been filed by Sultan who was reported against vide F. I. R. No. 56 dated 18th February, 1982, P. S. Sadar Sargodha in a case registered under section 302/307/148/149, P. P. C. together with Dost Muhammad and Iftikhar co‑accuse.

2. According to the F. I. R. version, on the day of occurrence. i.e. 18th February, 1982, there was a dance party going on at the house of Dost Muhammad in Chak No. 75/South at which Muhammad Hussain complainant together with Muhammad Afzal and Ashfaq Ahmad were present. There was an altercation between Ashfaq Ahmad and Khizar Hayat and Gulla son of Sultan and Iftikhar son of Hakam Ali. The matter ended at the exchange of abuses. It is further alleged that thereupon Ashfaq Ahmad and Afzaal Ahmad gave a blow to Khizar Hayat, etc. People intervened and the dance party came to an end. Thereafter, Khizar Hayat is alleged to have left after holding a threat that they will take revenge for the insult. According to the complainant, Muhammad Ahsan, he and his companions were in front of the house of Dost Muhammad where mujra had taken place and were ready to leave for their houses when Gulls and Khizar Hayat accused armed with knives and the present petitioner Sultan armed with sota and Dost Muhammad son of Iftikhar empty handed appeared on the scene. Sultan accused (present petitioner) shouted a lalkara that Ashfaq Ahmad and Afzaal Ahmad should not escape. Thereupon, Dost Muhammad caught hold of Afzaal Ahmad and Iftikhar Ahmad caught hold of Ashfaq Ahmad thereby facilitating inflie ting of a knife blow on the person of Ashfaq Ahmad by Gulla accused. As faq Ahmad thereupon fell down and the accused ran away towards their houses shouting lalkaras. The incident is alleged to have been wit nessed by Manzoor and Alaf Din in addition to the complainant. Ashfaq Ahmad died, before reaching the hospital. Afzaal Abroad was, it is further stated; got admitted in the hospital.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the bail appli cation has contended that the petitioner Sultan is only attributed a prover bial lalkara and that no overt act has been performed by him. The peti tioner though allegedly stated to be armed with a sota, never used it. This circumstance is pressed into service to show that the petitioner in no way participated in the alleged crime. The bail is not being opposed by the learned counsel for the State who is present with Muhammad Afzaal A. S.‑I. After having given my careful consideration to the matter, I am of the view that prima facie there do not exist reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The question of vicarious liability is to be determined at the trial. There is no role attributed to the petitioner except a lalkara.

4. In the circumstances, I admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. M.Y.M. Bail granted.