1995 PLP 1501 (MLD)

Due to the dispute of immovable property an occurrence took place on 31-3-1994 at 11-00 p.m. wherein Muhammad Asghar lost his life. F.I.R. No.81, dated 1-4-1994 was got registered by Shahid Mahmood complainant at 3-15 a.m. at Police Station, Alpa, Multan under section 302/448/148/149, P.P.C. The dispute of immovable property had been taken to the Civil Court as well. According to Shahid Mahmood complainant his cousin Mahmood Ashraf and his father had gone to Police Station Alpa after visiting the Additional Superintendent of Police, Multan. They had not arrived back. He alongwith Khalid Ashraf Khan and Muhammad Asghar went to the disputed place. They were close to the door of the Flour Mill where Muhammad Iqbal Gujjar armed with pistol and his brother armed with rifle alongwith 2/3 persons who were also armed with lethal weapons and could be identified, arrived. Muhammad Asghar deceased was about to alight from the car. Muhammad Iqbal Gujjar raised the Lalkara that he will teach a lesson to him. He fired a shot at him which hit the bonnet of the car. The second shot was hit by Muhammad Iqbal Gujjar which hit the right chest of Muhammad Asghar who fell down. After wards all the accused continued firing. Muhammad Asghar was placed in a car in injured condition who expired in the way. Supplementary statement of Shahid Mahmood complainant 'was recorded by the Police. Khalid Ashraf, Zahoor and Haq Nawaz were also examined by the Police as eye-witnesses. They named Muhammad Akram petitioner as the accused who was present at the spot while armed with revolver and made ineffective firing. Muhammad Akram has been arrested by the police on 29-5-1994 whose bail application has been rejected by the lower Court on 26-6-1994. Hence this petition with the same desire.

2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the complainant and gone through the record before me. The State counsel is not appearing. It is the third dated proceed to dispose of this application on merits.

3. The co-accused Muhammad Yousaf Gill was admitted to bail by this Court on 9-10-1994 as he did not injure any person. Learned counsel for the petitioner has correctly canvassed that due to the attraction of the rule of consistency Muhammad Akram petitioner is also entitled to sail in the same boat alongwith his aforesaid co-accused Muhammad Yousaf Gill for the purpose of his admission to bail. In the F.I.R. the name of this petitioner is not mentioned. No legal weight is to be granted to the supplementary statement of the complainant because that is a routine which has been created and is being adopted by the police, otherwise the law of the land does not approve or bless the same. Even in the supplementary statement the complaint did not mention Muhammad Akram petitioner has the accused. He did not injure any person. I do not agree with the learned counsel for the complainant who laid the emphasis that since the eye-witnesses have named Muhammad Akram as the accused in their statements recorded by the Police, he cannot avoid his vicarious criminal liability. In view of what has been expressed above, the involvement of Muhammad Akram petitioner is held to be a question of further enquiry as well.

4. Finding it to be a fit case I accept this application and admit Muhammad Akram petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of C learned Sessions Judge, Multan with the direction to appear before the learned trial Court in case of execution of this order failing which he shall be liable to face the legal consequences i.e. the cancellation of his bail.

5. Copy Dasti on payment of usual charges, if desired. N.H.Q./M-2001/L Bail granted