2002 PLP 696 (YLR)

Asghar Ali for the Complainant. Mirza Abdullah Baig for the State. Petitioners seek bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No.570 of 2001 dated 27‑10‑2001 under sections 302/148/149, P.P.C. Police Station Satellite Town, Gujranwala.

2. The prosecution story as given in the F.I.R. registered on the statement of Faisal Shehzad briefly stated that on 27‑10‑2001 at about 11‑30 a.m. the complainant alongwith his two brothers Muhammad Asif and Naeem Abbas boarded a Rickshaw for Civil Hospital, Gujranwala, because they had to procure the report from the concerned Cardiologist which was required in connection with bail application of their father. As the Rickshaw reached Chowk Satellite Town, M/s. Munir Ahmad armed with dagger, Liaqat Ali (petitioner) armed with Pistol, Asif Mushtaq (petitioner) armed with Hockey, Malik Tehsin armed with "Soa", Ijaz armed with Pistol, Malik Abbas armed with rifle .222, Qaisar Warriach armed with Danda, Malik Amjad armed with Pump‑action and Munir Ahmad, etc. came there and raised a Lalkara that Naeem Abbas be done to death to avenge the blood‑feud. Liaqat, Ijaz, Malik Abbas and Malik Amjad resorted to aerial firing and there was terror in the area. Naeem Abbas was dragged out of the Rickshaw by the accused and thereafter, Munir Ahmad, Naeem Abbas, Qaisar Wariach, Malik Tahseen and Asif Mushtaq caused him injuries with their respective weapons. In the meanwhile, police reached the spot and the accused decamped. Naeem Abbas was shifted to Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries and died.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner right at the outset does not press this petition to the extent of Asif Mushtaq alias Goga for the present. The instant bail petition to his extent is dismissed as not pressed.

4. So far as, Liaqat petitioner is concerned, the learned counsel submits that case to his extent is false; that only aerial firing is attributed to him that he has been falsely involved in this case on account of previous enmity; that he was declared innocent in three investigations; that no recovery was effected from him and that he is no more required for further investigation.

5. The learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand, does not deny that petitioner, Liaqat has been declared innocent during three investigations. Adds that in all fairness that since no overt act is attributed to him he has instructions not to oppose the bail to his extent at this stage but prays that this stand should not affect the merits of the case during trial.

6. Heard.

7. Admittedly no overt act is causing any injury to the deceased is attributed to the petitioner. He was declared innocent in three investigations and learned counsel for the complainant has taken a very fair stand. In view of the afore‑referred circumstances, the question of petitioner's guilt would require further enquiry. Resultantly, this petition is allowed to the extent of Liaqat and subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, he shall be released on bail. Needless to say any observation made shall not effect merits of the main case. S.M.T/L‑47/L Bail allowed.