2009 PLP 2313 (YLR)

MALIK SAEED EJAZ, J.

Ishtiaq son of Sardar Muhammad/petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.350, registered at Police Station Sadar Chichawati, on 9-8-2007, for offences under sections 302/324/34, P.P.C.

2. According to prosecution case, while complainant along with his brother Nisar Ahmad deceased was lifting soil from the front side of their house, the petitioner restrained them from doing so; and thus, a quarrel took place between both the parties. The allegation against the petitioner is that he raised Lalkara, thereupon his brother Abdul Razzaq after picking up a rifle from his house rushed, to the spot and fired two successive fires at Nisar Ahmad, one of them landed on the belly of Nisar Ahmad, who succumbed to the injury at the spot. When the complainant tried to rescue his brother, Abdul Razzaq also made a fire towards him but luckily he saved.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the quarrel was started between the petitioner and the deceased; that the petitioner was empty handed; that he did not cause any injury to the deceased or any P.W; that only Lalkara is attributed to him; that role of causing injury to the deceased is attributed to Abdul Razzaq co-accused; that during investigation the petitioner has been found not present at the spot; that he petitioner is behind the bars since 30-9-2007; and thus, the petitioner is entitled to bail.

4. Conversely, learned D.P.G. assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role of raising Lalkara and on his instigation his real brother Abdul Razzaq fired at the deceased; and that Abdul Razzaq is still absconder and if the petitioner is released on bail, he would also abscond. However, learned D.P.G. concedes that during-investigation the petitioner was found not present at the, spot.

5. Arguments heard and record perused.

6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. and role of Lalkara is attributed to him but during the investigation admittedly he was not found present at the spot; and as such, the role assigned to petitioner needs further probe to connect him with the commission of offence. It is further noted that the petitioner was shown to be empty handed at the scene of- occurrence and he did not cause any injury to any one. As far as contention raised by the learned counsel for the complainant regarding the abscondence, of Abdul Razzaq co-accused is concerned, there is no allegation against the petitioner that he facilitated his co-accused to abscond, therefore, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the concession of bail merely on the ground that his co-accused has not been arrested so far. From the perusal of record it also reveals that no proceedings under sections 87/88, Cr.P.C. have been initiated against the co-accused so far.

7. In view of the above circumstances, I am inclined to accept this petition and admit the petitioner to bail, subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rupees Five Lacs (Rs.5,00,000) with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./I-51/L Bail granted.