1983 PLP 1395 (PCRLJ)

A case under section 302/307 and 34, P. C. read with sections 5 and 15 of the Islami Tazeerati Qawaneen Act is pending in the District Criminal Court, Rawalakote. The accused‑petitioner and his son Javed stand their trial for the aforesaid offence. Javed was allowed bail by the trial Court but bail to the accused‑petitioner was refused. The incident took place on ‑I Ith September, 1982. Sakhi Muhammad was killed. Allegedly a piece of land under Survey No. 281 was in possession of Sakhi Muhammad deceased who was cutting grass alongwith Muhammad Azad when he was asked by the accused who were armed with guns, not to cut grass. On this Sakhi Muhammad asked one Muhammad Shabir to bring his gun from his house who then brought the same. As soon as he (Muhammad Shabir) approached Sakhi Muhammad with his (Sakhi Muhammad's) gun, he was fired at by the accused, Fazal Muhammad Khan. The accused‑petitioner, it )s said, reported to the police that the land in dispute was in his possession when he was attacked by Sakhi Muhammad and some others who were armed with guns and thereafter a criminal trespass was committed by them. Sakhi Muhammad fired at him thereto injur ing him and his daughter was also injured by a fire. But police did not take its notice and instead he had to file a complaint in the trial court under sections 307, 147)148 and 427/447/149, P. C. read with sec‑, tion 15 of the Islami Tazeerati Qawaneen Act. The trial Court after recording the statement of the complainant and taking some cursory evidence issued process for the offences described in the complaint, to Muhammad Shabir, Muhammad Azad and some others. There is a decree of the civil Court in favour of the accused petitioner in respect of Survey No. 281 indicating therein his possession over the land in dispute. This is not admitted here in this case by the prosecution and the possession thereon was claimed that of Sakhi Muhammad deceased. In these circumstances, this is a matter for further inquiry as to see who was in fact in possession of the land in dispute and who was the aggressor. There are now two versions before the trial Court, one by the prosecution in this case and on by the accused, in a complaint case in which the complainant party of the challan case was summoned as accused under sections 307, 147/427/474 and 148/149, P. C. read with section 15 of the Islaami Tazeerati Qawaneen Act. In the light of what has been stated above, I feel advised also to allow bail to the accused‑petitioner in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 with three sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of any Magistrate 1st Class Poonch who shall be liable jointly as well as severally. A copy of this order shall be sent to the District Criminal Court for information of the accused petitioner in order to enable him to furnish bail bonds as ordered by this Court. Bail allowed.