1992 P Cr (PLP)

MA. Zafar for the Complainant. Muhammad Shah Nawaz Khan for the State. The petitioner alongwith 15 others, are accused of offences under sections 302/307/148/149 and 109, P.P.C. vide F.I.R. No.53/90, dated 2-2-1~ft registered at Police Station Peoples Colony, Faisalabad.

2. According to the F.I.R., in brief, the petitioners alongwith their other co-accused, made a murderous assault on the complainant party while variously armed and caused the death of Ghulam Rasul and Muhammad Aslam and injuries to the P.Ws., Maqbool Ahmad, Muhammad Faiz and Muhammad Sabir. The petitioners, alongwith some other accused, are alleged to have caused injuries to the deceased Muhammad Aslam. The occurrence is stated to be the result of enmity between the parties.

3. The learned counsel contended for the bail of the petitioners and submitted that no specific injuries are attributed to the petitioner and that it is not known as to whether or not the grievous injuries to then deceased Muhammad Aslam were caused by the petitioner, as the said deceased had suffered multiple injuries of simple and grievous nature, and that the benefit thus arising should go to the petitioner even at the bail stage. Further contended that as a result of the latest investigation by the D.S.P./S.D.P.O. Jaranwala, the petitioner has been declared innocent and as such ht-- is entitled to the concession of bail, and in this respect further pointed out that the co -accused namely, Faiz Ahmad Lodhi and Bashir Ahmad alias Palloo, assigned identical role as the present petitioner were allowed bail in Criminal Miscellaneous No.4168-B of 1990 and that in accordance with the principles of consistency the petitioner also deserves the same concession. Further submitted that the petitioners have been in the lock-up for the last: more than one year and that they are no longer required by the police for investigation, and that they are neither previous convict nor hardened criminal.

4. The present petition for bail was forcefully opposed by the learned counsel for the State and the complainant respectively, but failed too refute the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners.

5. On the previous date of hearing of the present bail petition, it was adjourned, as the learned counsel for the complainant had pointed out that the bail allowed to the co-accused vide Criminal Miscellaneous No.41"-B of 1990 had been assailed before the Honourable Supreme Court and that therefore, the present petition may be kept pending till the petition for cancellation of bail before the Honourable Supreme Court is disposed of. The learned counsel for the complainant has pointed out that the said petition for cancellation of bail has been dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court with the observation that the trial may be concluded expeditiously and that the learned trial Court shall not be prejudiced by anything said in the bail order.

6. Therefore, in view of what has been stated above and as the petitioner is not alleged to have caused any specific injury to the deceased and as they have been declared innocent by the latest investigation conducted by the D.S.P./S.D.P.O., Jaranwala, therefore, their case is covered by subsection (2) A of section 497, Cr.P.C. and as such the petitioner is allowed bail im the sum of Rs.50,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C./Duty Magistrate, Faisalabad. H.B.T./M-3051/L Bail granted.