2000 P Cr (PLP)

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/324/148/149‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑No weapon of offence was recovered from accused and no overt act was ascribed to him except Lalkara‑‑‑Bail could not always be withheld as punishment‑‑‑Role ascribed to accused and their vicarious liability had made case against them that of further enquiry‑‑‑Bail was granted to accused. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Principles‑‑‑Deeper appreciation of evidence could not be made at bail stage provided the same was not required and Court had just to see whether prima facie, a case of further enquiry was made out. Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafique and another PLD 1989 SC 585 and Dhani Bux and another v. The State 1990 PCr.LJ 1293 ref. Javed Iqbal for the State: ORDER The matter pertains to F.I.9. No.187 of 1999; under section 302/324/148/149, P.P.C., lodged at Police Station Sadar, Arifwala.

2. The F.I.R. was lodged on the statement of Bashir Ahmad complainant. According to the story at about 9 ' p.m. a Panchayat of the village was sitting with about 50/60 people to decide a dispute pertaining to the quarrel of children of the village. That when the Panchayat failed to arrive at a decision, his son Shah Nawaz went away from the Panchayat. He had reached near the house of a co‑villager Ghulam Nabi when he was confronted by Muhammad Akram armed with a Chhuri (not the petitioner), Muhammad Nawaz son of Sanaullah armed with a Chhuri (not the petitioner), Allah Ditta, armed with a Sota (not the petitioner), Ahmad Ali and Gohar Ali, armed with Sotas (the petitioners) and Fakhar Hayat, armed with Sota (not the petitioner). They raised a Lalkara that they had come to teach lesson of the previous event pertaining to the fight between the children. Muhammad Nawaz inflicted a Chhuri blow on Shah Nawaz which landed on the right flank at the back. Allah Ditta gave a Sota blow hitting Shah Nawaz on the head. Shah Nawaz raised alarm when the complainant alongwith the, P.Ws. Nazir Ahmad and Sarfraz etc. came forward to rescue Shah Nawaz. The accused left Shah Nawaz and ran after Nazir Ahmad, his brother, who entered his house. But in the meanwhile Fakhar Hayat caught hold of Nazir Ahmad. That Muhammad Akram inflicted three Chhuri blows on Nazir Ahmad landing these on his chest and back. That Nazir Ahmad fell on the ground and died afterwards. Several people of the Deh (village) arrived later on. Who caught hold of Akram alongwith his Chhuri. Rest of the accused ran away. Muhammad Akram also sustained some injuries during the altercation.

3. The motive part of the story was the previous quarrel between the children. 4. ‑ Bail is urged on the grounds that the petitioners Gohar Ali and Ahmad Ali have only been ascribed Lalkara. That there is no injury attributed to them either on the person of Shah Nawaz or the deceased Nazir Ahmad. That. no weapon has been recovered from them. That the investigation is complete and they were no longer required by the police.

5. Previously their bail applications were rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Arifwala. One of the consideration before the learned trial Court was that the trial in this case has started and the delay was being caused by the defence because they had not engaged a counsel. That the accused have been challaned. The order reflects that a recovery of Sota was made from Ahmad Ali petitioner.

6. It is an admitted fact that no recovery was effected from Gohar Ali petitioner. A Sota is said to have been recovered from Ahmad Ali on 2‑5‑1999 as is evident from the recovery memo. placed on the police file. There is no overt act ascribed to him except Lalkara.

7. When the challan has been submitted and the trial is about to commence the Courts often decline to exercise their discretion under section 497, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. But bail cannot always be withheld as punishment. The role ascribed to the petitioners is clear and it makes a case of further enquiry as far as they are concerned with respect to their role in the occurrence and with respect to their vicarious liability under the circumstances of the case.

8. Whereas, according to the learned A.A.‑G. the challan has been submitted in the Court but he has not stated as to when the trial shall begin. The learned trial Court was further of the view that deeper appreciation of the evidence could not be made at the bail stage provided that a deeper E appreciation was not required and it had just to see whether prima facie a case of further enquiry was made out. In this connection reference may be made to the case of Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafique and another PLD 1989 SC 585 and Dhani Bux and another v. The State 1990 PCr.LJ 1293.

9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I admit the petitioners to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two respectable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court, who is directed to commence the trial in this case with a convenient despatch. H.B.T./G‑10/L Bail granted.