2004 P Cr (PLP)

Sultan Ahmad, the petitioner through the instant petition has sought for cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to respondents Nos. 1 to 3 by Mehr Ejaz Ali Sial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal vide his order, dated 19-6-2003 in case F. I. R. No. 202, dated 30-11-2002, under sections 302/365/324/452/109/148/149, P.P.C., registered with Police Station, Fateh Sher, Sahiwal.

2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the same are that the said case stands registered on the statement of the present petitioner Sultan Ahmad. He has alleged therein that on 30-11-2002 at about 9-00 a.m. he and his sons Liaqat Ali and Jafar Ali were returning to their house from their land. Jafar Ali was ahead of them while they were following him. They when reached in front of the house of Muhammad Nadeem alias Boota, Muhammad Shafiq and Muhammad Nadeem alias Boota were standing in the street near the Rehri of Bangles of Shafiq. They were talking to each other. He and his son Liaqat Ali stood with them while Jafar Ali remained moving ahead. All of a sudden on the noise they saw that Nasir Ahmad Sindhi armed with rifle, Imran Sindhi armed with pistol, Mushtaq Ahmad (respondent No. 1) with .12 bore gun (double-barrel), Muhammad Riaz armed with hatchet, Mustafa (respondent No.2) armed with .12 bore gun, Ghulam Shabbir (respondent No.3) with Sota, and Muhammad Akram with Sota were dragging Sadaq Ali, his son from his house and were also firing. Jafar Ali when reached near the house of Abdul Latif, Muhammad Akram called Nasir Sindhi that Jafar Ali has also come and he be also fired at: Thereupon Nasir Sindhi fired with rifle at Jafar Ali hitting him on his chest. Imran Sindhi fired with pistol hitting him on the front side of his neck, who fell down and succumbed to his injuries instantaneously. Riaz inflicted hatchet blow to Sadaq Ali hitting him on his head. The accused remained beating Sadaq Ali and dragged him to the house of Nasir Sindhi and shut the door from the inside. The incident besides many other persons was witnessed by Muhammad Ali, who was standing in the street. They all beseeched the accused but they did not open the door.

3. The motive behind the occurrence is that Nasir Ahmad Sindhi is habitual offender, who provides shelter to criminals and also gets crime committed in the village. Sadaq Ali and Jafar Ali had informed, the police about his activities. They on the grudge over the same in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly formed by them have committed the above said act.

4. The respondents Nos. 1 to 3 had applied for post-arrest bail. The said learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal vide his order, dated 19-6-2003 has extended them the said relief observing at no active role to them qua the crime has been attributed and their mere implication in the case does not create a reason for detaining them behind the bars for an indefinite period.

5. The petitioner feeling aggrieved of the same has come to this Court with the instant. petition for cancellation/withdrawing of the said relief to them.

6. It has been contended on his behalf that they all the three are named in the F.I.R.; that they all have been assigned the active role in the commission of crime; that they all the three in his supplementary statement of the same day have been attributed specific role of causing injuries to the deceased person and so they sufficiently are connected with the crime and in such situation they have not justifiably been extended the relief of bail; and that the bail granting order is not speaking one as has contained only one reason.

7. I have carefully considered his submissions and gone through the copies of the record annexed to the petition.

8. As is obvious from the above position that the learned. Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal while extending them the relief of bail was influenced by the fact that no active role qua the commission of crime alleged has been ascribed to them in the F.I.R. This is definitely so as the reading of F.I.R. shows that no injury at all to the deceased person has been ascribed to them. There is only one sentence in the F.I.R. concerning their role. The same is to the effect that:-- This clearly shows that there is no specific attribution of any kind to them (respondents Nos. 1 to 3). Hence the question of their vicariously liable for the murder of the deceased person is definitely be gone into at the time of trial. Their case, thus, definitely required further inquiry into their Built and so was covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.

9. As regards the contention that the bail granting order to them is not speaking one, I do not agree with the same as it is speaking one. Because even one reason recognized in law is sufficient to furnish base for an order or, finding of Court in a judicial matter and for that many are not required.

10. In these circumstances, I am clear in my mind that no case fort cancellation of bail to them has been made out. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed in limine. However, any observation made above shall not in any way influence the mind of the trial Court. N.H.Q./S-726/L Petition dismissed.